37th  Congress,  )    HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,     j  Report 
•  3d  Session.     j  (  No.  49. 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


Maech  3,  1863. — Laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Fenton,  from  the  select  committee  to  inquire  into  contracts  of  the 
government,  made  the  following 

REPORT. 

The  special  committee  of  the  House,  appointed  to  inquire  into  all  the  facts 
and  circumstances  connected  with  contracts  and  agreements  by  or  ivith 
the  government  growing  out  of  its  operations  in  suppressing  the  rebel- 
lion, submit  the  folloioing  final  report: 

Since  the  last  report,  submitted  'to  the  House  on  the  17th  day  of 
July,  1862,  your  committee  have  confined  their  labors  principally  to 
the  investigation  with  which  they  were  charged  by  the  resolution  of 
the  House,  of  February  26,  1862,  instructing  said  committee  to 
"inquire  into  the  amount  of  moneys  received  by  the  federal  officers 
in  the  city  of  New  York  by  virtue  of  their  offices ;  also  as  to  the 
ownership  and  rents  of  the  bonded  warehouses  ;  also  the  terms,  con- 
siderations, and  profits  of  the  labor  contracts  for  the  storing,  hauling, 
and  delivery,  &c. ,  of  foreign  goods  in  the  city  of  New  York  ;  when 
made,  by  whom,  and  who  are  now  interested  in  the  same." 

The  labors  of  the  committee  have  extended  through  a  period  of 
twenty  months,  and  their  reports  and  the  testimony  taken  will  cover 
nearly  three  thousand  pages  of  printed  matter.  They  have  endeav- 
ored faithfully  to  discharge  the  important  and  onerous  duties  confided 
to  them,  and  the  result  of  their  labors  may  be  found  in  the  many  mil- 
lions of  dollars  saved  to  the  treasury  through  their  investigations. 

The  disclosure  of  the  transactions  which  brought  reproach  upon  the 
western  department  in  the  summer  and  fall  of  1861,  brought  upon  your 
committee  no  small  amount  of  obloquy  and  reproach  from  the  parties 
implicated  in  the  frauds  which  were  exposed.  A  court-martial,  con- 
stituted of  distinguished  officers  of  the  regular  army  of  high  rank, 
was  convened  to  try  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster  of  the 
United  States  army,  who  was  charged  with  corrupt  practices  as  a 
public  officer  while  acting  in  that  department.  The  sixty-one  speci- 
fications under  the  charge  were  nearly,  if  not  quite,  all  based  upon 
the  testimony  taken  by  your  committee.  After  a  trial  of  almost 
unprecedented  length,  in  which  the  accused  was  allowed  every  lati- 
tude for  his  defence,  he  was  found  guilty,  in  whole  or  in  part,  on 
twenty-six  specifications.   He  was  convicted  of  the  charge,  and 


2 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


promptly  dismissed  the  service  by  the  order  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States.  The  order  of  the  War  Department,  embracing  the 
charge  and  specifications  and  the  orders  thereon,  is  deemed  of  suffi- 
cient importance  to  be  incorporated  into  this  report,  to  the  end  that 
it  may  be  shown  that  no  guilty  officer,  however  high  his  rank,  or  how- 
ever skilled  in  fraudulent  practices,  can  escape  the  proper  punishment 
when  brought  to  answer  before  an  intelligent  and  incorruptible  tribu- 
nal, mindful  alike  of  the  honor  of  the  service  and  the  imperative 
demands  of  public  justice. 

Though  the  committee  was  composed  of  gentlemen  of  both  political 
parties,  and  their  examinations  have  involved  persons  of  every  polit- 
ical faith,  it  affords  them  great  pleasure  to  say  that,  among  those 
members  of  the  committee  who  have  participated  in  its  labors,  there 
lias  never  been  any  disagreement  touching  the  questions  which  have 
arisen  before  them,  or  in  regard  to  the  conclusions  to  which  they  have 
arrived. 

Your  committee  devoted  much  time  to  the  subject  of  the  resolution 
of  February  26,  1862,  in  regard  to  the  amount  of  moneys  received  by 
the  federal  officers  in  the  city  of  New  York  by  virtue  of  their  offices, 
&c,  above  referred  to. 

In  order  to  facilitate  this  investigation,  the  committee  met  in  the 
city  of  New  York  and  examined  many  witnesses  upon  the  various 
matters  mentioned  in  the  resolution.  The  persons  examined  have 
been  those  who  would  be  likely  to  afford  the  most  specific,  direct,  and 
reliable  information  upon  the  subjects  inquired  about.  A  pretty  large 
amount  of  testimony  has  been  taken,  which  is  herewith  submitted, 
and  which  the  committee  desire  may  be  regarded  and  treated  as  a 
part  of  their  report.  The  matters  examined  into  embrace  a  wide  and 
varied  range  of  topics.  Much  of  the  information  from  the  witnesses 
18  valuable,  and  affords  important  explanations  of  the  practical  work- 
ings of  the  revenue  system  at  the  central  point  where  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  duties  on  imports  is  and  has  long  been  collected. 

Though  there  is  a  large  amount  of  testimony,  yet  it  is  generally 
relevant  to  the  points  of  inquiry;  is  unusually  explicit  in  its  charac- 
ter ;  and  much  o£  it  is  condensed  into  forms  convenient  to  a  clear 
understanding  of  the  subject-matter.  For  this  reason  the  committee 
have  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  go  into  any  extended  analysis  of  it, 
but,  after  briefly  referring  to  the  several  topics  embraced  in  the  reso- 
lution, have  concluded  to  present  it  to  the  House  without  extended 
comments  of  their  own. 

1.  As  to  the  amount  of  moneys  received  by  the  federal  officers  in  the 
city  of  New  York. 

As  to  moneys  received  by  these  officers  in  the  shape  of  salaries,  fees, 
perquisites,  and  commissions,  the  proof  shows  that,  in  some  cases, 
they  are  large — too  large,  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee.  In  re- 
spect to  those  officers  whose  emoluments  are  increased  by  sharing  in 
the  proceeds  of  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  incurred  by  violations  of 
the  revenue  laws  and  matters  of  the  like  character,  the  annual  aggre- 
gates received  by  them,  in  some  instances,  are  large,  as  will  be  seen  by 
consulting  the  testimony  on  those  points  where  the  sums  are  specifi- 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


3 


cally  set  forth.  The  committee  approve  of  the  general  principle 
upon  which  the  laws  regulating  this  subject  are  based;  and  while, 
as  has  already  been  said,  they  are  of  the  opinion  that  in  some  cases 
these  aggregates  are  too  large,  yet  they  might  find  it  difficult  to  de- 
termine to  what  extent,  and  in  what  mode,  the  amounts  could  be  re- 
duced, without  at  the  same  time  withdrawing  a  portion  of  that 
stimulus  which,  according  to  the  recognized  motives  of  human  ac- 
tion and  the  established  usages  of  all  commercial  nations,  has  been 
found  necessary  to  impel  even  the  most  conscientious  officials  to  ex- 
traordinary vigilance  in  the  detection  of  frauds  and  the  punishment 
of  crimes. 

At  all  events,  inasmuch  as  the  resolution  of  the  House  does  not  re- 
quire the  committee  to  propose  any  alterations  in  existing  laws  on  this 
subject,  they  will  refrain  from  troubling  the  House  with  any  specific 
suggestions  in  regard  to  it.  Before  they  could  do  so  intelligently, 
they  must  open  new  fields  of  inquiry,  and  more  thoroughly  explore 
those  into  which  they  have  found  time  to  enter.  They  therefore 
submit  the  testimony  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  to  the  careful 
consideration  of  the  House. 

2.  As  to  the  otvnership  and  rents  of  the  bonded  warehouses  at  the  city 
of  New  York. 

Upon  this  branch  of  the  inquiry  the  committee  would  refer  to  the 
testimony  of  Hamilton  Bunce,  deputy  collector  of  the  port  of  New 
York,  on  the  9th  of  September,  1862,  and  also  to  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Barney,  collector  of  the  port,  taken  on  the  10th  of  September, 
1862,  and  on  the  10th  of  January,  1863.  Their  explanations  satisfied 
the  committee  that  there  were  no  serious  objections  to  the  course  of 
business  at  New  York,  so  far  as  concerns  this  class  of  warehouses. 
They  seem  to  be  convenient  and  necessary  to  facilitate  commerce  in 
a  large  city.  They  have  long  existed,  and  have  been  a  part  of  the 
machinery  of  the  revenue  system.  They  are  not  a  monopoly.  The 
testimony  shows  that  any  person  in  the  city  of  New  York,  on  appli- 
cation to  the  collector  for  authority  to  have  any  suitable  building 
belonging  to  him  designated  as  a  bonded  warehouse,  can,  on  giving 
sufficient  bonds,  be  accommodoted.  The  warehouses  of  this  class  are 
numerous.  The  price  of  storage  therein  is  regulated  by  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce.  And  the  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  amount 
of  profits  to  the  owners  arising  from  this  source  is  not  large. 

3.  As  to  the  remaining  branch  of  the  resolution  concerning  the  terms, 
consideration,  and  profits  of  the  labor  contract  for  the  storing,  hauling, 
and  delivery  of  foreign  goods,  &c. 

The  labor  contract  referred  to  had  reference  to  a  contract  for  the 
hauling  of  sample  goods  from  the  ships  and  docks  to  the  appraisers' 
stores  for  the  purpose  of  being  examined  by  the  United  States  ap- 
praisers ;  for  the  unpacking  of  the  boxes,  cases,  &c,  in  which  the 
goods  were  contained,  and  for  the  repacking  and  return  of  the  same 
to  the  owners  after  appraisal. 

This  contract  was  made  by  Mr.  Secretary  Cobb  with  certain  parties 
in  New  York,  September  5,  1859.  It  was  to  continue  in  force  for 
three  years.    Previous  to  this  time  labor  had  been  performed  by 


4 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


the  government  itself  through  its  employes,  and  not  by  contract.  It 
Mas  alleged  that  many  abuses  and  much  favoritism  had  been  practiced 
under  the  old  system.  And,  though  the  contract  price  agreed  upon 
by  Mr.  Cobb  was  a  large  one,  the  new  system  was  then  deemed  an 
improvement  and  reform  upon  the  old  one.  Inasmuch  as  it  is  pro- 
verbially true  that  private  individuals  can  generally  perform  the  same 
amount  of  work  cheaper  than  government  can,  it  is  not  strange  that 
these  contractors  should  make  pretty  large  profits  under  their  con- 
tracts. But  the  committee  regret  that  such  enormous  profits  should 
have  grown  out  of  this  change  of  system. 

This  contract  continued  in  force  until  it  expired  by  its  own  limi- 
tation, viz:  September  5,  18G2.  On  the  11th  of  May,  1861,  this 
contract  (for  what  remained  unexpired  of  the  three  years,)  was  as- 
signed to  other  parties,  and  the  labor  was  performed  under  it  by 
these  assignees  till  it  expired.  The  evidence  shows  that  large  profits 
were  made  under  it  by  the  assignees,  as  had  theretofore  been  the  case 
by  the  assignees.  The  committee  are  not  aware  that  any  serious 
fault  wTas  found  with  the  manner  in  which  the  mere  labor  was 
done  under  the  contract.  But  some  abuses  had  grown  up  under 
it.  And  it  was  believed  that  this  labor  could  be  performed  by 
the  government  for  a  sum  less  than  was  paid  by  the  terms  of  this 
contract,  and  that  economy  demanded  a  return  to  the  old  system 
with  such  modifications  and  reforms  as  experience  had  suggested. 

Consequently  the  contract  of  1859  was  allowed  to  expire,  and  a 
new  one  was  not  made.  This  important  and  expensive  branch  of  the 
revenue  business  at  New  York  is  now  restored  to  the  special  control 
of  the  collector  of  the  port.  Mr.  Barney,  in  his  testimony,  estimates 
that  this  labor  can  be  performed  at  an  annual  saving  to  the  government 
of  $37,000  compared  with  the  prices  paid  by  virtue  of  the  contract 
of  1859.    Experience  will  prove  whether  this  estimate  is  correct. 

The  committee  would  refer  the  House  to  the  testimony  on  all  the 
points  above  suggested. 

Finally,  in  regard  to  the  general  course  of  business  in  those  de- 
partments of  the  public  service  in  New  York  city,  into  which  the 
committee  were  directed  to  make  inquiry,  they  would  say,  in  con- 
clusion, that  there  are  more  or  less  abuses  of  the  administration  of  a 
system  so  vast  and  varied  as  that  under  consideration.  Some  of  these 
abuses  are  probably  incidental  to  the  working  of  our  complicated 
revenue  laws  and  regulations  at  the  principal  port  of  entry  and  de- 
parture in  this  country,  and  which  we  are  proud  to  call  one  of  the 
great  marts  of  the  world.  Some  abuses  have  probably  crept  in  by 
lapse  t)f  time,  b}T  cupidity  on  the  part  of  officials,  and  occasional  lack 
of  vigilance.  But  the  committee  deem  it  but  just  to  add,  in  this  con- 
nexion, that  there  was  no  proof  before  them  tending  to  show  that 
these  abuses  were  more  numerous  now  than  they  have  been  hereto- 
fore. 

E.  B.  WASHBURNE,  Chairman. 
R.  E.  FENTON. 
WM.  S.  HOLMAN. 
H.  L.  DAWES. 
W.  G.  STEELE. 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


5 


The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  general  order  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment referred  to  in  this  report  : 

GENERAL  ORDERS  No.  43. 

War  Department,  Adjutant  General's  Office, 

Washington,  February  13,  1S63. 

I.  Before  a  general  court-martial,  which  convened  in  the  city  of  Saint  Louis, 
Missouri,  September  24,  1862,  pursuant  to  Special  Orders  No.  239,  dated  head 
quarters  of  the  army,  September  13,  1862,  and  Special  Orders  Xo.  260,  dated 
September  25,  1862,  and  of  which  Brigadier  General  P.  St.  George  Cooke, 
United  States  army,  is  president,  was  arraigned  and  tried  Major  Justus  McKin- 
stry,  quartermaster,  United  States  army. 

Charge. — "  Neglect  and  violation  of*  duty  to  the  prejudice  of  good  order  and 
military  discipline." 

Specification  1. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster, 
at  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  in  the  department  of  the  west,  when  one  Peter  Wiles, 
of  Saint  Louis,  had  furnished  to  his  department  a  number  of  horses  fit  and 
proper  for  the  service,  at  about  the  price  of  one  hundred  dollars  each,  and  was 
able  and  willing  to  furnish  other  like  horses  at  the  same  cost,  and  offered  to  do 
so,  refused  to  purchase  said  horses,  unless  at  a  reduced  price,  and  broke  off  his 
dealing  with  said  Wiles,  while  he,  said  McKinstry,  was  purchasing  from  other 
persons — viz  :  Charles  M.  Elleard,  B.  F.  Fox,  Almon  Thomson,  F.  J.  Flanne- 
gon,  James  B.  Neill,  and  others — horses  no  better,  at  the  prices  of  one  hundred 
and  nineteen  dollars  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each,  to  the  gross  waste 
and  squandering  of  the  public  funds,  and  with  the  intent  to  throw  the  business 
into  the  hands  of  the  dealers  to  whom  he  was  paying  the  higher  prices.  This 
at  Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  on  or  about  the  tenth  day  of  August,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  sixty-one." 

Specification  2. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster, 
Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  knowing  that  by  allowing  to  one  Peter  Wiles,  of  the  city 
of  Saint  Louis,  a  commission  of  five  per  cent,  on  the  purchase  price  of  the 
horses,  he  could  procure  a  large  number  of  horses  fit  and  proper  for  the  service, 
and  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  each,  did  not  and  would  not 
purchase  said  horses,  while,  about  the  same  time,  he  purchased  other  horses  no 
better  and  at  higher  prices,  to  net  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each  and 
one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each,  from  other  persons,  to  wit :  Charles  M. 
Elleard,  James  B.  Neill,  F.  J.  Flannegon,  Ansyl  Philips,  and  others,  with  intent 
to  favor  the  purchasers  at  higher  prices,  and  to  the  gross  waste  and  squander- 
ing of  the  public  funds.  This  at  Saint  Louis,  about  the  tenth  day  of  August, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one." 

Specification  3. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
as  aforesaid,  at  Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  when  one  Frederick  M.  Colburn,  of  the 
city  of  Saint  Louis,  had  furnished  to  his  department  a  number  of  cavalry  horses 
fit  and  proper  for  the  service,  at  the  price  of  one  hundred  and  eight  dollars 
each,  and  was  able  and  willing  to  furnish  other  like  horses  at  the  same  cost,  and 
offered  to  do  so,  refused  and  failed  to  inspect  or  receive  said  Colburn's  horses, 
and  by  neglecting  to  attend  to  said  Colburn  when  he  offered  his  horses,  by 
refusing  to  grant  him  inspection,  and  by  annoying  said  Colburn  with  delays  and 
expenses,  in  keeping  and  feeding  his  horses  without  inspection,  broke  off  his 
dealings  with  said  Colbum,  while  he,  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  as  afore- 
said, was  purchasing  other  horses  no  better  than  Colburn's  from  other  persons, 
viz  :  James  B.  Neill,  Almon  Thomson,  Charles  M.  Elleard,  and  F.  J.  Flanne- 
gon, at  the  price  of  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  to  the  waste  and 
squandering  of  the  public  funds,  and  with  intent  to  throw  the  business  into 
the  hands  of  the  dealers  to  whom  he  was  paying  the  higher  prices.  This 


G 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


about  August  twenty-second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  at  Saint  Louis, 
Missouri." 

Specification  4. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstiy,  quartermast  er 
aforesaid,  at  Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  having  contracted  with  one  Oliver  Lippencott 
to  purchase  from  him,  Lippencott,  twelve  mules  at  the  price  of  ninety  dollars 
each,  and  said  Lippencott  having  brought  said  mules  to  the  quartermaster's 
office  for  delivery,  failed  and  refused  to  have  said  mules  inspected  or  considered 
under  said  contract,  but  sent  one  Ansyl  Philips,  from  whom  he,  said  McKinstry, 
was  purchasing  mules  at  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  to  purchase  the 
said  mules  from  Lippencott ;  and  when  said  Philips  had  purchased  of  said  Lip- 
pencott seven  of  said  mules  at  the  price  of  seventy -five  dollars  each,  he,  said 
McKinstry,  purchased  the  same  seven  mules  from  said  Philips  at  a  higher  price, 
to  wit,  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  to  the  gross  waste  and  squander- 
ing of  the  public  funds,  and  with  intent  to  favor  the  said  Philips  as  a  dealer. 
This  about  the  eighth  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  at  Saint 
Louis,  Missouri." 

Specification  5. — "In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
at  Saint  Louis,  when  one  Oliver  Lippencott  offered  to  sell  him  five  mules  at 
ninety  dollars  each,  failed  and  refused  to  purchase  said  mules  from  Lippencott ; 
and  when  said  Lippencott  had  sold  said  mules  to  a  government  contractor,  whose 
name  is  unknown,  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  purchased  the  same  five  mules 
from  said  contractor  at  the  price  of  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  with 
intent  to  favor  such  contractor,  and  to  the  gross  waste  and  squandering  of  the 
public  funds.  This  about  the  twentieth  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-one." 

Specification  6. — "In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  when  one  John  H.  Morse,  of  Jefferson  county,  Missouri,  went  to  him 
at  his  office  in  Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  and  offered  to  sell  him  a  large  number  of 
mules  fit  and  proper  for  the  service,  and  inquired  if  he  was  going  to  purchase 
any  more  mules,  falsely  stated  to  said  Morse  that  the  government  was  not  in 
need  of  any  more,  which  statement  he,  said  McKinstry,  knew  to  be  false,  thereby 
intending  to  compel  said  Morse  to  sell  his  mules  to  others,  from  whom  he,  Mc- 
Kinstry, was  then  purchasing  these  animals  at  exorbitant  rates  above  the  market 
value.  This  at  Saint  Louis,  about  the  first  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-one." 

Specification  7. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
as  aforesaid,  having  need,  on  or  about  the  tenth  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-one,  to  purchase  for  his  department  a  large  number  of  cavalry  horses, 
did  not  and  would  not  purchase  them  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  value ; 
but  authorized  one  Charles  M.  Elleard,  of  Saint  Louis,  without  any  advertise- 
ment for  proposals,  to  furnish  the  same  to  him  at  one  hundred  and  nineteen 
dollars  each ;  and  between  that  day  and  the  twentieth  day  of  September,  in  the 
same  year,  said  Elleard  had  sold  to  said  McKinstry,  quartermaster  as  aforesaid, 
about  one  thousand  eight  hundred  cavalry  horses,  the  market  value  of  which 
was  about  ninety  dollars  only,  each,  on  the  average;  he,  said  Major  McKinstry, 
thereby  then  and  there  prostituting  his  office  of  quartermaster,  with  intent  to 
secure  to  said  Elleard,  and  others  in  collusion  with  him,  large  gains,  to  the 
squandering  and  waste  of  the  public  funds  and  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  S. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
as  atoresaid,  on  or  about  the  tenth  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
one,  having  need  to  purchase  a  number  of  artillery  horses  for  his  department  at 
Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  them  in  the  market  nor 
for  the  market  value;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  authorized 
one  Charles  M.  Elleard,  of  Saint  Louis,  to  furnish  the  same  to  him  at  one  hun- 
'  dred  and  fifty  dollars  each ;  and  between  that  day  and  the  twentieth  day  of 
September,  in  the  same  year,  said  Elleard  sold  to  said  McKinstry,  quartermaster 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


7 


as  aforesaid,  about  three  hundred  artillery  horses  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  dol- 
lars each,  the  market  value  of  which,  on  the  average,  was  about  one  hundred 
and  ten  dollars  only,  each;  he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and 
there  prostituting  his  office  as  quartermaster,  with  intent  to  secure  to  said  El- 
leard,  and  others  in  collusion  with  him,  large  gains,  to  the  waste  and  squandering 
of  the  public  funds  and  to  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  9. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
as  aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
one,  at  Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  having  need  to  purchase  for  his  department  a  large 
number  of  cavalry  horses  and  mules,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same 
in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  value;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  pro- 
posals, authorized  one  James  B.  Xeill  to  furnish  the  same  at  one  hundred  and 
nineteen  dollars  each;  and  on  that  day,  and  divers  days  between  that  day  and 
the  first  day  of  October  in  the  same  year,  said  Xeill  had  sold  to  said  Major  Mc- 
Kinstry, quartermaster  as  aforesaid,  about  one  thousand  cavalry  horses  and 
mules  for  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  the  market  value  of  which  was 
about  eighty  dollars  each;  he,  the  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster, 
thereby  then  and  there  prostituting  his  office,  with  intent  to  secure  to  said  Xeill, 
and  others  in  collusion  with  him,  large  gains,  to  the  waste  and  misapplication  of 
the  public  funds  and  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  10. — "In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
as  aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
one,  having  need  to  purchase  a  large  number  of  artillery  horses  for  his  depart- 
ment, did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market 
value;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  at  Saint  Louis,  Missouri, 
authorized  one  James  B.  Xeill,  of  Saint  Louis,  to  furnish  the  same  to  him  at 
one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each;  and  between  that  day  and  the  sixth  day  of 
October,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  said  Xeill  sold  to  said  Major  McKin- 
stry, quartermaster  as  aforesaid,  about  three  hundred  artillery  horses  at  the  price 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each,  the  market  value  of  which  was  about  one 
hundred  and  ten  dollars  each,  on  the  average;  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  thereby 
then  and  there  prostituting  his  office,  with  intent  to  secure  to  said  Xeill,  and 
others  in  collusion  with  him,  large  gains,  to  the  misapplication  and  waste  of  the 
public  funds  and  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  11. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
at  Saint  Louis,  on  or  about  the  twelfth  day  of  September,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-one,  having  need  to  purchase  a  large  number  of  mules  for  his  department, 
did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  price ; 
but,  at  Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  author- 
ized one  Leonidas  Haskell,  of  Saint  Louis,  late  of  California,  to  furnish  the 
same  to  him  at  the  price  of  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each ;  and  between 
that  day  and  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  September,  in  the  same  year,  said  Has- 
kell sold  to  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster,  about  four  thousand  mules 
at  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  the  market  value  of  which  was  about 
one  hundred  dollars  each,  on  the  average;  he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry, 
thereby  then  and  there  prostituting  his  office  as  quartermaster,  with  intent  to 
secure  to  said  Haskell  large  gains,  to  the  waste  and  misapplication  of  the  public 
funds  and  to  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  12. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  at  Saint 
Louis,  Missouri,  about  the  twentieth  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
one,  having  need  to  purchase  artillery  and  cavalry  horses  for  the  use  of  his  de- 
partment, did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the 
market  value;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  authorized  one  F. 
J.  Flannegon,  of  Saint  Louis  county,  to  furnish  the  same  to  him;  that  is  to  say, 
artillery  horses  for  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  and  cavalry  horses 
for  one  hundred  and  eighteen  dollars  each;  and  in  the  residue  of  said  month  o 


8 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


August,  aucl  in  the  month  of  September,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  said 
Flannegon  delivered  under  said  authority  about  two  hundred  artillery  horses  at 
the  price  of  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  the  market  value  of  which 
was  only  about  ninety  dollars  each;  he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master as  aforesaid,  thereby  intending  to  secure  to  said  Flannegon  large  gains, 
to  the  waste  and  squandering  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  13. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  on  or  about 
the  twentieth  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  having  need  to 
purchase  a  large  number  of  artillery  horses  and  cavalry  horses  for  his  depart- 
ment, did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market 
value;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  authorized  one  Benjamin 
F.  Fox,  of  Springfield,  Illinois,  to  furnish  the  same  to  him  at  one  hundred  and 
nineteen  dollars  each  for  cavalry  horses,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each 
for  artillery  horses ;  and  between  that  day  and  the  first  day  of  October,  in  the 
same  year,  said  Fox  sold  to  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry  about  five  hundred 
cavalry  horses  for  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  the  market  value  of 
which  was  about  ninety  dollars  each,  and  about  two  hundred  artillery  horses, 
the  market  value  of  which  was  about  one  hundred  dollars  each;  he,  the  said 
Major  Justus  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there  prostituting  his  office  of  quar- 
termaster, with  intent  to  secure  large  gains  to  said  Fox,  to  the  waste  and  squan- 
dering of  the  public  funds  and  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Sjyccification  14.— "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master aforesaid,  having,  about  the  20th  August,  1861,  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  con- 
tracted with  one  Benjamin  F.  Fox,  of.  Illinois,  to  furnish  him,  as  quartermaster, 
a  number  of  artillery  horses  for  the  price  of  one  hundred  and  twenty -five  dollars 
each,  afterwards,  when  said  Fox  was  performing  his  contract  and  was  about  to 
deliver  a  portion  of  the  horses  at  that  price,  afterwards,  about  the  12th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1861,  out  of  mere  favor  to  said  Fox,  and  without  any  other  considera- 
tion, agreed  with  said  Fox  to  pay  him  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each  for  the 
same  horses  which  said  Fox  had  contracted  to  furnish  at  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  dollars  each,  and  did  receive  from  said  Fox  said  horses  accordingly,  at  the 
price  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each." 

Specification  15. — "  In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master as  aforesaid,  having  authorized,  as  aforesaid,  James  B.  Neill  to  furnish  to 
his  department  cavalry  horses  for  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  and 
artillery  horses  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each,  did  suffer  and  permit  said 
Neill  to  inspect,  receive,  and  brand  his  own  horses  so  sold  to  him,  said  McKin- 
stry. This  at  St.  Louis,  on  the  eighteenth,  nineteenth,  and  twentieth  days  of 
September,  1861,  to  the  gross  neglect  and  disregard  of  the  interests  of  the  service." 

Specification  16. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master, having  authorized  James  B.  Neill,  as  aforesaid,  to  furnish  him  artillery 
horses  and  cavalry  horses  as  aforesaid,  did  suffer  and  permit  said  Neill  to  receive 
and  brand  horses  as  cavalry  horses,  furnished  by  himself  as  cavalry  horses,  at 
one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  and  afterwards  to  brand  the  same  as  ar- 
tillery horses,  and  did  receive  the  same  from  said  Neill  as  artillery  horses,  at  the 
price  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each.  This  at  St.  Louis,  about  the  10th 
of  September,  1861." 

Specification  17. — "That  on  or  about  the  day  of  ,  1861,  when 

one  Almon  Thompson  offered  to  sell  to  him,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master aforesaid,  a  number  of  mules,  about  seventy,  fit  and  proper  for  the  service, 
and  when  said  mules  were  greatly  needed  in  the  service,  he  said  McKinstry,  did 
not  or  would  not  purchase  said  mules,  nor  cause  the  same  to  be  inspected  for  a 
long  time,  nor  until  said  Thompson  paid  one  James  B.  Neill  fifty  dollars  to  have 
his  mules  purchased,  and  then  said  McKinstry  had  said  mules  inspected,  and 
purchased  the  same;  he,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there  prostituted  his 
office,  with  intent  to  favor  the  said  James  B.  Neill." 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


9 


Specification  18. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
as  aforesaid,  when  one  James  Everett,  of  Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  about  the  28th 
August,  1861,  offered  to  sell  him  a  large  number  of  horses  fit  and  proper  for  the 
service,  some  of  them  as  cavalry  and  some  of  them  as  artillery  horses,  and  would 
have  sold  them  to  him  at  about  one  hundred  dollars  each  all  round,  refused  and 
neglected  to  purchase  said  horses,  or  inspect  the  same,  and  did  not  and  would 
not  inspect  the  same  till  said  Everett  was  compelled  -to  sell  his  horses  to  Charles 
M.  Elleard  and  F.  J.  Flannegon  and  others,  to  whom  said  Major  McKinstry  was 
paying  higher  prices  for  said  horses ;  and  when  said  Everett  had  so  disposed  of 
the  horses,  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  purchased  the  same  horses  from  Elleard 
and  Flannegon  and  others,  at  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollers  each  for  cavalry, 
and  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each  for  artillery  horses,  to  the  waste  and 
squandering  of  the  public  funds ;  he,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there 
intending  to  compel  said  Everett  to  turn  his  horses  over  to  said  Elleard  and 
Flannegon  and  others,  contractors  at  higher  prices,  and  to  enable  them  to  make 
large  gains  above  the  market  value  of  said  animals.  This  at  Saint  Louis,  on  or 
about  September  6,  1861." 

Specification  19. — "In  this :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster, 
at  St.  Louis,  when  one  John  Allen,  of  St.  Louis,  was  able  and  willing  to  sell 
him  a  large  number  of  mules  and  cavalry  and  artillery  horses  fit  and  proper  for 
the  service,  and  offered  to  do  so,  the  cavalry  and  artillery  horses  at  about  one 
hundred  and  five  dollars  each,  and  the  mules  at  about  one  hundred  and  nine 
dollars  each,  failed,  neglected,  and  refused  to  inspect  or  purchase  said  animals, 
until  said  Allen  had  been  compelled  to  sell  them  to  contractors,  to  whom  he, 
McKinstry,  was  paying  higher  prices,  to  wit :  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars 
each  for  mules  and  cavalry  horses,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each  for 
artillery  horses ;  that  is  to  say,  to  B.  F.  Fox,  of  Illinois,  Charles  M.  Elleard, 
Leonidas  Haskell,  James  B.  Neill,  of  St.  Louis,  and  F.  J.  Flannegon  and  others; 
and  when  said  Allen  had  so  sold  his  animals,  he,  said  McKinstry,  did  purchase 
the  same  animals  from  said  contractors  for  the  prices  last  mentioned,  thereby 
prostituting  his  office  as  quartermaster,  with  intent  to  secure  large  gains  above 
the  market  value  to  said  Elleard,  Flannegon,  Haskell,  Fox,  and  others,  to  the 
waste  and  squandering  of  the  public  funds.  This  about  the  20th  September, 
1S61,  at  St.  Louis,  Missouri." 

Specification  20. — "In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
as  aforesaid,  when  one  Josephus  Irvine,  of  Pike  county,  Missouri,  was  able  and 
willing,  and  offered  to  sell  to  him  a  large  number  of  horses  and  mules  fit  and 
proper  for  the  service,  at  one  hundred  and  ten  dollars  each,  and  to  enter  into 
bonds  to  comply  therewith,  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  falsely  stated  to  said 
Irvine  that  government  did  not  want  any  more  stock,  and  did  not  and  would 
not  purchase  from  said  Irvine,  notwithstanding  he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry, 
quartermaster  aforesaid,  was,  at  the  same  time,  purchasing  horses  and  mules  no 
better  than  said  Irvine's  from  other  persons — that  is  to  say,  F.  J.  Flannegon, 
James  B.  Neill,  B.  F.  Fox,  Charles  M.  Elleard,  and  others — for  one  hundred 
and  nineteen  dollars,  thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  compel  said  Irvine  to 
sell  his  mules  to  persons  to  whom  he  was  paying  higher  prices,  to  the  waste 
and  misapplication  of  the  public  funds.  This  on  or  about  the  twentieth  Sep- 
tember, 1861." 

Specification  21. — "  In  this :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  when  one  Robert  P.  Coffey,  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  was  desirous  of 
selling  to  government  a  large  number  of  mules  fit  and  proper  for  the  service,  at 
one  hundred  and  eight  dollars  each,  and  offered  them  to  said  Major  McKinstry, 
he,  said  McKinstry,  failed  and  refused  to  purchase  the  same  until  said  Coffey 
had  been  compelled  to  sell  them  to  one  Captain  Leonidas  Haskell,  at  one  hun- 
dred and  eight  dollars  each,  in  Missouri  Bank  paper,  after  which  he,  said  Major 
McKinstry,  purchased  the  same  mules  from  said  Haskell  at  the  price  of  one 


10 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  with  intent  to  secure  to  said  Haskell  large 
gains  above  the  market  value  of  said  animals,  and  to  the  waste  and  squandering 
of  the  public  funds  and  fhe  disgrace  of  the  service." 

t  Specification  22. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  MeKinstry,  having  purchased 
of  one  Robert  W.  Peay,  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  two  hundred  and  ninety  mules 
for  the  service,  at  the  price  of  one  hundred  and  ten  dollars  each,  on  or  about  the 
20th  day  of  September.  1861,  afterwards  issued  to  one  James  B.  Neill,  of  the 
city  of  St.  Louis,  a  voucher  for  the  same  mules  as  if  sold  to  the  United  States 
by  said  Neill.    Said  voucher  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit : 


'No.  12. 

The  United  States  to  James  B.  Neill,  Dr. 


at  $119  $39,984  00 


1 1861. 
1  August  16,   40  mules, 
"      17,     6  " 

20,  263  " 

21,  27  " 

' 1  certify  that  the  above  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles  have  been 
accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the  30th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1861. 

'J.  McKIXSTRY, 
'Major  and  Senior  Quartermaster. 

'  Received  at  ,  the  of  ,  1S6 — ,  of  ,  quarter- 
master, United  States  army,  the  sum  of  thirty  thousand  nine  hundred  and  eighty- 
four  dollars  and  cents,  in  full  of  the  above  account. 

('  Signed  in  duplicate.) 

'JAMES  B.  NEILL.' 

"  The  charge  for  two  hundred  and  sixty-three  mules,  under  date  of  20th,  and 
of  twenty-seven  mules,  under  date  21st,  in  said  voucher,  being  the  same  mules 
sold  by  said  Peay  to  said  Major  MeKinstry,  which  said  voucher  was  and  is 
false  ;  in  this,  that  said  two  hundred  and  ninety  mules  were  not  sold  to  said 
MeKinstry  by  said  Neill  at  all,  but  were  sold  by  Robert  W.  Peay  to  said 
MeKinstry,  quartermaster  as  aforesaid,  for  one  hundred  and  ten  dollars  each, 
and  not  for  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  as  stated  in  the  voucher; 
he,  said  Major  Justus  MeKinstry,  thereby  intending  to  secure  to  said  Neill,  or 
others  in  collusion  with  him,  large  gains  by  means  of  said  false  voucher,  to  the 
waste  and  squandering  of  the  public  funds  and  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  23. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  MeKinstry,  quarter- 
master aforesaid,  when,  about  the  first  day  of  September,  1S61,  one  Robert  W. 
Peay,  of  St.  Louis,  was  able  and  willing  to  furnish  to  his  department  about 
eight  hundred  mules,  during  the  residue  of  said  month,  for  about  the  sum  of 
one  hundred  and  eight  dollars  each,  in  Missouri  Bank  paper,  and  offered  to  con- 
tract with  him  to  furnish  said  mules  of  quality,  fit  and  proper  for  the  service, 
failed,  neglected,  and  refused  to  entertain  the  proposition  of  said  Peay,  and  told 
said  Peay  the  government  did  not  want  any  more  mules  then ;  but  afterwards, 
when  said  Peay  had  sold  his  mules  to  one  Leonidas  Haskell,  from  whom  he, 
Major  Justus  MeKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesaid,  was  purchasing  mules  at  one 
hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  and  said  Haskell  had  purchased  said  Peay's 
mules  for  one  hundred  and  eight  dollars  each  in  said  Missouri  Bank  paper,  he,  said 
Major  MeKinstry,  purchased  the  same  mules  from  said  Haskell  as  fast  as  said 
Peay  turned  them  over  to  Haskell,  he,  said  MeKinstry,  taking  every  one  from 
said  Haskell  at  one  hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  each,  to  the  number  of  about 
eight  hundred.    This  on  the  first  day  of  September,  and  on  divers  days  between 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


11 


that  and  the  seventh  day  of  October,  1S61,  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  he,  said  Major 
McKinstry,  intending  thereby  to  secure  large  gains  to  said  Haskell  above  the 
market  value  of  said  animals,  to  the  wastage  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  24. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  on  the  first  day  of  July,  1861,  and  on  divers  days  between  that  and 
the  sixth  day  of  October,  in  the  same  year,  as  quartermaster  aforesaid,  did  pur- 
chase, altogether,  a  large  number  of  horses  for  the  service — to  wit :  about  fifteen 
hundred — at  rates  of  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  artillery,  and  one 
hundred  and  nineteen  dollars  for  cavalry  per  head,  which  were  unfit  for  the 
service,  and  almost  worthless,  from  being  too  young  or  too  old,  blind,  weak- 
eyed,  damaged,  worn  out,  or  diseased  ;  he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  acting 
in  that  behalf  in  gross  carelessness  and  disregard  of  the  interests  of  the  service, 
to  the  misapplication  and  wasting  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  25. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master aforesaid,  did,  on  the  first  day  of  July,  1861,  and  on  divers  days  be- 
tween that  day  and  the  sixth  October,  in  the  same  year,  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  did 
purchase  for  his  department  a  large  number  of  mules  at  one  hundred  and  nine- 
teen dollars  each — viz  :  altogether  about  one  thousand  mules — which  were  unfit 
for  the  service,  and  almost  worthless,  from  being  too  old  or  too  young,  blind, 
weak-eyed,  damaged,  worn  out,  or  diseased ;  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  acting 
in  that  behalf  in  gross  carelessness  and  disregard  of  the  interest  of  the  service, 
to  the  waste  and  squandering  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  26. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master aforesaid,  having,  on  or  about  the  tenth  day  of  August,  1S61,  authorized 
one  Charles  M.  Elleard,  without  any  previous  advertisement  for  proposals,  to 
furnish  to  his  department  a  large  number  of  artillery  and  cavalry  horses,  at  the 
price  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  artillery  horses,  and  one  hundred  and 
nineteen  dollars  for  cavalry  horses,  said  prices  being  exorbitant  and  above  the 
market  values,  and  said  contract  being  worth  about  the  sum  of  forty  thousand 
dollars  to  said  Elleard,  he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  in  consideration  of 
granting  such  a  favor  to  said  Elleard,  undertook  to  appropriate  a  portion  of 
said  profits ;  that  is,  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  required  said  Elleard  to  allow 
one  P.  Brady,  of  Detroit,  Michigan,  to  share  with  him  equally  said  profits ;  and 
though  said  Elleard  did  not  want  said  Brady  as  a  partner,  and  said  Brady  was 
of  no  use  to  said  Elleard,  yet,  in  consideration  of  securing  the  favor  of  said 
Major  McKinstry,  as  quartermaster  and  contracting  agent  of  the  government, 
and  for  no  other  consideration,  he,  said  Elleard,  consented,  at  McKinstry's  de- 
mand, to  allow  said  Brady  to  receive  twenty  thousand  dollars,  or  thereabout,  of 
said  profits ;  he,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  prostituting  his  office  to  secure  for 
said  Brady,  and  others  in  collusion  with  him,  said  amount  of  money,  to  the  dis- 
grace of  the  service." 

Specification  27 '. — "In this:  that  one  Alfred  B.  Ogden,  being  architect  for 
Benton  barracks,  with  authority  from  Major  Justus  McKinstry  to  let  out  the 
roofing  of  said  barracks,  and  said  Ogden  having  stipulated  for  and  received  from 
one  Henry  Clapp,  of  St.  Louis,  a  written  order,  substantially  as  follows :  'Major 
McKinstry:  Please  pay  to  the  bearer,  P.  L.  Bierce,  the  sum  of  $700,  against 
contract  for  materials  furnished  August  14,  1861.  (Signed)  Henry  Clapp/  as 
a  bribe  to  him,  said  Ogden,  for  accepting  the  bid  of  said  Clapp,  and  securing  to 
him,  said  Clapp,  the  job  of  roofing,  and  said  Ogden,  notwithstanding  his  receiv- 
ing said  order  as  a  consideration  for  giving  the  job  to  Clapp,  having  failed  to 
do  so,  and  said  Clapp  having  spoken  of  the  said  facts,  which  came  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesaid,  he,  said  McKinstry, 
on  the  twenty-third  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  at  St. 
Louis,  Missouri,  caused  said  Clapp  to  come  before  him  as  provost  marshal  of 
St.  Louis,  and  the  said  McKinstry  did  then  and  there,  by  cursing  and  abusing 
said  Clapp,  by  denouncing  him  as  a  'liar'  and  a  'disunionist,'  by  threatening 


12 


G  O  VERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


'to  imprison1  him,  said  Clapp,  and  'feed  Lira  on  bread  and  water,'  and  by  order- 
ing a  file  of  soldier.*,  whom  he  paraded  before  said  Clapp,  to  seize  and  take  him 
away,  greatly  terrify  and  frighten  said  Clapp,  and  by  means  thereof  did  force 
and  compel  him  to  sign  and  swear  to  the  following  statement: 

'  St.  Louis,  August  23,  1861. 
'  Having  charged  Mr.  Ogden,  the  architect  of  the  government,  with  fraud  in 
the  management  of  the  business  intrusted  to  him  by  the  quartennaster,  I  hereby 
revoke  said  charge  and  relieve  him  from  the  same.  I  hereby  swear  and  declare 
that  I  am  a  good  loyal  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  will  do  all  that  is  in 
my  power  to  uphold  and  protect  the  same;  that  I  will  not,  directly  or  indirectly, 
give  aid  or  information  to  the  enemy  in  any  manner  or  form. 

1  HENRY  CLAPP. 

'  Sworn  to  and  subscribed  in  presence  of  S.  B.  Brady  and  S.  B.  Lowe.' 

All  that  portion  of  said  statement  relating  to  revoking  the  charge  of  fraud  and 
relieving  said  Ogden  therefrom  being  false  entirely,  and  being  extorted  from 
said  Clapp  against  his  free  will  and  consent,  by  the  means  aforesaid,  employed 
by  said  Major  J.  McKinstry,  to  the  great  oppression  of  said  Henry  Clapp  and 
to  the  deep  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  28. — "  In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster, 
when  one  Alexander  Largue,  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  on  or  about  September  10, 
1861,  offered  to  sell  to  him  a  lot  of  covered  canteens,  4,000  in  number,  fit  and 
proper  for  the  service,  for  36  J  cents  each,  and  offered  to  contract  to  deliver  to 
him  a  very  large  quantity  of  such  canteens  for  the  same  price,  to  be  delivered 
to  suit  the  convenience  of  said  Quartermaster  McKinstry,  failed  and  refused  to 
purchase  the  same  or  contract  with  said  Largue  in  that  behalf,  but  referred  him 
to  one  S.  B.  Brady,  of  Detroit,  Michigan,  who  then  and  there  purchased  the 
same  4,000  canteens  from  Largue  at  36  J  cents  each,  and  afterwards  sold  them 
to  the  quartermaster's  department  at  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  through  Captain  W. 
G.  Rankin,  a  junior  quartermaster,  for  44  cents  each,  who  issued  to  said  Brady 
a  voucher,  which,  so  far  as  relates  to  said  canteens,  is  in  the  words  and  figures 
following,  to  wit : 

•  United  States  to  S.  P.  Brady. 

'1S61. 

■  October  4. — For  4,000  canteens,  44  cents   $1,  760  00 

1 1  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles 
have  been  accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the 
31st  December,  1861. 

<W.  G.  RANKIN, 

'  Captain  13th  Infantry.1 

That  he,  said  McKinstry,  did  suffer  and  permit  said  Brady  so  to  purchase  and 
sell  said  canteens,  to  the  gross  neglect  and  disregard  of  the  interest  of  the  ser- 
vice, and  with  intent  to  secure  to  said  Brady  a  speculation  on  the  same." 

Specification  29. — "  In  this  :  that  he.  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  nineteenth  day  of  August,  1861,  having  need  to  pur- 
chase for  his  department  a  large  number  of  common  tents,  did  not  and  would 
not  suffer  one  Henry  Martin,  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  to  sell  them  to  him  at  the 
market  value ;  but  when  said  Martin  wrote  him  a  note,  offering  to  furnish  him 
.a  large  number,  referred  said  Martin  to  one  Joseph  S.  Pease,  who  charged  said 
Martin  a  commission  of  five  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  all  the  tents  he,  said  Mar- 
tin, sold  to  him,  Pease ;  and  when  said  Pease  had  in  this  way  purchased  the 
tents  from  Martin,  he,  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesaid,  purchased  the 
same  tents  from  Pease  at  a  price  which  enabled  said  Pease  to  make  said  com- 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


13 


mission  clear;  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  thereby  prostituting  his  office,  with 
intent  to  secure  to  said  Pease  said  commission  from  said  Martin,  to  the  oppres- 
sion of  said  Martin  and  to  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  30. — "In  this:  that  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  August,  1S61, 
he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesaid,  gave  to  one  Joseph 
S.  Pease  the  control  of  the  business  of  purchasing  tents  for  his  department  in 
the  city  of  St.  Louis,  in  so  far  as  to  enable  said  Pease  to  compel  tent-makers  to 
pay  him,  Pease,  a  commission  in  order  to  sell  their  tents ;  and  when  one  Horace 
Hallon  had  paid  to  said  Pease  a  commission  of  five  per  cent,  on  a  large  number 
of  tents  which  he  sold  Pease,  he,  said  Major  J.  McKinstry,  purchased  the  same 
tents  from  said  Pease  at  a  price  which  enabled  said  Pease  to  make  said  com- 
mission clear;  he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  thereby  prostituting  his  office, 
with  intent  to  compel  said  Holton  to  pay  such  commission  to  said  Pease,  to  the 
great  oppression  of  said  Holton  and  to  the  disgrace  of  the  service." 

Specification  31. — "In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  August,  1861,  gave  to  one  Joseph  S. 
Pease  control  of  the  business  of  purchasing  tents  for  his  department  in  the  city 
of  St.  Louis,  in  so  far  as  to  enable  said  Pease  a  commission  in  order  to  sell  their 
tents ;  and  when  John  G.  Dodge,  of  said  city,  had  so  paid  to  said  Pease  a  com- 
mission of  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  on  a  large  number  of  tents  he  sold  him,  he, 
said  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesaid,  purchased  the  same  tents  from 
Pease  at  a  price  which  left  said  Pease  to  retain  said  commission,  thereby  prosti- 
tuting his  office,  with  intent  to  secure  said  commission  to  Pease,  to  the  oppres- 
sion of  the  said  Dodge." 

Specification  32. — "  In  this :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  August,  1861,  gave  to  one  Joseph  S. 
Pease  control  of  the  business  of  (purchasing  tents  for  his  department  in  the  city 
of  St.  Louis,  in  so  far  as  to  enable  said  Pease  to  compel  tent  makers  to  pay  hina, 
Pease,  a  commission  in  order  to  sell  their  tents;  and  when  James  Sanders,  ot 
said  city,  had  so  paid  to  said  Pease  a  commission  of  five  per  cent,  on  a  large 
number  of  tents  he  sold  him,  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesaid, 
purchased  the  same  tents  from  Pease  at  a  price  which  left  said  Pease  to  retain 
said  commission,  thereby  prostituting  his  office,  with  intent  to  secure  said  com- 
mission to  Pease,  to  the, oppression  of  said  Sanders." 

Specification  33. — "  In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  August,  1S61,  gave  to  one  Joseph  S. 
Pease  control  of  the  business  of  purchasing  tents  for  his  department  in  the  city 
of  St.  Louis,  in  so  far  as  to  enable  said  Pease  to  compel  tent-makers  to  pay  him, 
Pease,  a  commission  in  order  to  sell  their  tents ;  and  when  Malcolm  McQuaig, 

of  said  city,  had  so  paid  to  said  Pease  a  commission  of  per  cent,  on  a  large 

number  of  tents  he  sold  him,  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesaid, 
purchased  the  same  tents  from  Pease  at  a  price  which  left  said  Pease  to  retain 
said  commission,  thereby  prostituting  his  office,  with  intent  to  secure  said  com- 
mission to  Pease,  to  the  oppression  of  the  said  McQuaig." 

Specification  34. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
as  aforesaid,  having  need,  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  August,  1861,  to  purchase 
tents  for  his  department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market 
nor  for  the  market  value,  but  authorized  one  Joseph  S.  Pease,  a  relative  by  mar- 
riage, to  furnish  the  same  for  him ;  and  when  one  Clemens  &  Co.,  tent-makers, 
of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  had  sold  to  said  Pease  a  lot  of  one  hundred  tents  for 
twenty-two  dollars  each,  he,  Major  McKinstry,  purchased  from  said  Pease  the 
same  tents  for  thirty  dollars  each,  he,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there 
intending  to  secure  to  said  Pease,  and  others  in  collusion  with  him,  large  gains, 
to  the  waste  and  squandering  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  35. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  J.  McKinstry,  on  or  about  the 
1st  day  of  August,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase  for  his  department  a  large 


14 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS 


number  of  tents,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for 
the  market  value,  but  authorized  one  Joseph  S.  Pease  to  furnish  the  same  to 
him;  and  when  said  Pease  in  this  way  had  purchased  from  John  G.  Dodge 
a  number  of  tents  at  the  same  price  for  which  said  Dodge  would  have  sold  them 
to  said  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  as  aforesaid,  he,  said  McKinstry,  pur- 
chased the  same  tents  from  said  Pease  at  a  large  advance  on  the  price  which 
said  IVa*e  had  paid  to  Dodge.  This  on  the  1st  day  of  August,  1861,  and 
on  divers  days  between  that  day  and  the  sixth  day  of  October,  1861,  at  St. 
Louis,  Missouri." 

Specified  turn  36. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  J.  McKinstry,  quartermaster,  on 
or  about  the  1st  day  of  August,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase  tents  for  his 
department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the 
market  value,  but  authorized  one  Joseph  S.  Pease  to  furnish  him  the  same;  and 
when  said  Pease  had  purchased  of  one  John  G.  Dodge,  a  tent-maker  of  the  city 
of  St.  Louis,  a  lot  of  tents  for  fifty-five  dollars  each,  he  said  McKinstry,  then 
and  there  purchased  the  same  tents  of  said  Pease  at  the  price  of  sixty-five  dol- 
lars each;  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  thereby  intending  to  secure  to  said  Pease, 
and  others  in  collusion  with  him,  large  gains  over  the  market  value  of  the  arti- 
cles purchased.  This  on  the  day  last  mentioned,  and  divers  other  days  between 
that  day  and  the  6th  October,  1861,  at -St.  Louis,  Missouri." 

Specification  37. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  J.  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  26th  day  of  July,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase  a 
large  number  of 'tents  for  his  department  of  all  descriptions,  did  not  and  would 
not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  value,  but  authorized 
one  Joseph  S.  Pease  to  purchase  up  the  tents  in  the  St.  Louis  market,  and  to 
contract  to  purchase  these  articles  from  the  tent-makers  of  the  city  at  the  best 
terms  he  could  procure ;  and  when  he,  said  Pease,  had  so  procured  the  tents,  he, 
Major  McKinstry,  purchased  the  same  tents  from  Pease  at  a  large  advance  on 
the  prices  which  Pease  paid,  and  at  which  he,  McKinstry,  might  have  procured 
them  himself  directly  from  the  tent-makers,  thereby  intending  to  secure  large 
gains  to  said  Pease,  and  others  in  collusion  with  him,  to  the  misapplication  and 
squandering  of  the  public  funds.  This  at  Saint  Louis,  on  the  day  last  men- 
tioned, and  on  divers  days  between  that  day  and  the  6th  October,  1861." 

Specification  38. — "  In  this :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  on  or  about  the 
9th  day  of  August,  1861,  and  on  divers  days  between  that  day  and  the  sixth  day 
of  October,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase  mess-pans  for  his  department,  did 
not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  price ; 
but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  authorized  Messrs.  Child,  Pratt  & 
Fox,  hardware  merchants,  of  Saint  Louis,  Missouri,  to  furnish  him,  as  quarter- 
master, with  said  articles  ;  and  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  between  the  days  afore- 
said, at  divers  times,  purchased  of  one  Giles  F.  Filley,  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis, 
about  six  thousand  mess-pans  at  about  29  J  cents  each ;  and  when  said  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  had  so  purchased  said  articles,  he,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry, 
purchased  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  the  same  mess-pans  for  35  cents  each, 
which  was  an  exorbitant  price ;  thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  secure 
large  gains  above  the  market  value  of  said  articles  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox, 
and  others  in  collusion  with  them,  to  the  waste  of  the  public  funds,  and  gross 
neglect  and  disregard  of  the  interests  of  the  service." 

Specification  39. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermas- 
ter as  aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  9th  day  of  August,  1861,  and  on  divers  days 
between  that  day  and  the  6th  day  of  October,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase 
camp-kettles  for  his  department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in 
the  market  nor  for  the  market  value ;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  propo- 
sals, authorized  Messrs.  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  to  furnish  him,  as  quartermaster, 
with  said  articles ;  and  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  on  the  days  and  at  divers  times 
between  the  days  last  mentioned,  purchased  of  Giles  F.  Filley,  of  St.  Louis, 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


15 


about  five  thousand  camp-kettles  at  about  42  J  cents  each ;  and  when,  and  as  fast 
as  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  had  so  purchased  the  said  articles,  he,  said  Major 
Justus  McKinstiy,  purchased  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  the  same  camp- 
kettles  for  sixty-five  cents  each,  which  was  an  exorbitant  price;  thereby  then 
and  there  intending  to  secure  large  gains  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  and  others 
in  collusion  with  them,  to  the  gross  neglect  and  disregard  of  the  interest  of  the 
service  and  to  the  waste  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  40. — "  In  this :  that  he,  Major  McKinstiy,  quartermaster  afore- 
said, on  the  day  of  September,  1861,  and  on  divers  days  between  that  day 

and  the  sixth  day  of  October,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase  tin  plates  for  his 
department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the 
market  price,  but  authorized  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  without  any  advertise- 
ment for  proposals,  to  furnish  the  same  to  him  as  quartermaster ;  and  said  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox,  on  the  days  aforesaid,  and  on  divers  days  between  those  days, 
purchased  of  Oliver  D.  Filley,  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  about  fifteen  hundred 
tin  plates  at  about  4  J  cents  each  ;  and  when  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  had  so  pur- 
chased said  tin  plates,  and  as  fast  as  they  purchased  them,  he,  said  McKinstiy, 
quartermaster  aforesaid,  purchased  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  the  same  tin 
plates  at  seven  cents  each,  which  was  an  exorbitant  price ;  thereby  then  and 
there  intending  to  secure  large  gains  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  and  others  in 
collusion  with  them,  to  the  gross  neglect  and  disregarding  the  interests  of  the 
service,  and  to  the  waste  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  41. — "  In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermas- 
ter aforesaid,  on  the  1st  day  of  August,  1861,  and  on  divers  days  between  that 
day  and  the  6th  day  of  October,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase  picket-pins  for 
his  department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  them  in  the  market  nor  for  the 
market  value;  but,  without  any  advertisements  for  proposals,  authorized  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  to  furnish  the  same  to  him  as  quartermaster  aforesaid;  and  said 
Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  on  the  days  aforesaid,  and  between  those  days,  at  divers 
times,  purchased  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  of  one  Peter  J.  Pauley,  about  two 
thousand  picket-pins  at  45  cents  each  for  a  portion,  and  35  cents  each  for  the 
residue,  and  when  they  had  so  purchased  said  picket-pins,  and  as  fast  as  they 
purchased  them,  he,  Major  J.  McKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesaid,  purchased  the 
same  picket-pins  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  at  the  price  of  65  cents  each, 
which  was  an  exorbitant  price;  he,  the  said  McKinstiy,  thereby  intending  to 
secure  to  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  large  gains  above  the  market  value  of  these  arti- 
cles, to  the  gross  neglect  and  disregard  of  the  interests  of  the  service,  and  to  the 
waste  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  42. — "  In  this :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstiy,  quartermas- 
ter as  aforesaid,  having  had  from  one  Thomas  Hood,  on  or  about  the  9th  day  of 
April,  1861,  a  written  proposal  to  furnish  to  his  department  picket-pins  of  qual- 
ity fit  and  proper  for  the  service,  at  the  price  of  25  cents  each,  and  knowing 
that  he  could  purchase  in  the  market,  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  as  many  picket- 
pins  of  the  like  quality,  from  the  said  Thomas  Hood,  as  was  needed  for  his  de- 
partment, at  about  25  cents  each,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same ; 
but,  without  accepting  said  Thomas  Hood's  bid,  and  without  seeking  to  procure 
picket-pins  at  their  market  value,  purchased  from  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  about  two 
thousand  of  these  articles  at  65  cents  each,  intending  to  secure  large  gains  to  said 
Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  and  others  in  collusion  with  them,  to  the  waste  and  squan- 
dering of  the  public  means,  and  to  the  gross  neglect  and  disregard  of  the  public 
interest." 

Specification  43. — "  In  this :  that  he,  Major  McKinstry,  on  or  about  the  27th 
September,  1861,  at  St.  Louis,  having  need  to  purchase  overcoats  for  his  de- 
partment, did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the 
market  price ;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  authorized  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  to  furnish  the  same  to  him  j  and  when  they  had  purchased  then 


1G 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


and  there  from  Martin  &  Brothers,  at  Saint  Louis,  802  overcoats  for  the  price 
of  seven  dollars  and  fifty  cents  each,  ($7  50,)  he,  said  McKinstry,  then  and 
there  purchased  the  same  802  overcoats  from  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  for  $10  50 
each,  and  afterwards  issued  to  them  a  voucher  for  the  same,  which,  so  far  as 
relates  to  said  overcoats,  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit : 

'  No.  12. 

1  The  United  Slates  to  Child,  Pratt     Fox,  Dr. 

'  1S61. 

■  September  26.— 802  overcoats,  at  $10  50   $8,421  00 

1 1  certify  that  the  above  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles  have  been 
accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the  30th  Sep- 
tember, 1861. 

<J.  McKINSTRY, 

'Brigadier  General,  Assistant  Quarter  master. y 

He,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  secure  to  Child,  Pratt 
&  Fox,  and  others  in  collusion  with  them,  large  gains,  to  the  waste  of  the  public 
funds." 

Specification  44. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  J.  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  having  need,  about  the  17th  September,  1861,  at  St.  Louis,  to  pur- 
chase blouses  for  his  department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in 
the  market  nor  for  the  market  value,  but  then  and  there  authorized  Child,  Pratt 
6c  Fox  to  furnish  the  same ;  and  when  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  had  purchased 
then  and  there  of  Martin  &  Brothers,  clothiers  in  St.  Louis,  802  blue  blouses, 
on  September  17,  1861,  for  $2  25  each,  he,  said  McKinstry,  purchased  from  said 
Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  the  same  802  blue  blouses  for  $3  each ;  afterwards,  on  the 
26th  September, -1861,  issued  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  a  voucher  therefor, 
which,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  802  blouses,  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following, 
to  wit  i 

'  No.  12. 

,  The  United  States  to  Child,  Pratt  4*  Fox,  Dr. 

'1861. 

■  September  26.— S02  blue  blouses,  at  $3   $2,406  00 

1 1  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles 
have  been  accounted  for  on  my  property  returns  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the 
30th  September,  1861. 

'J.  McKINSTRY, 

1  Brigadier  General,  Assistant  Quartermaster.1 

He,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  secure  to  said  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  large  gains  above  market  value  of  said  articles,  to  the  squandering 
of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  45 — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  about  the 
19th  September,  1861,  at  St.  Louis,  having  need  to  purchase  blouses  for  his 
department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the 
market  price ;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  then  and  there 
authorized  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  a  hardware  house,  to  furnish  the  said  articles 
to  him  ;  and  when,  on  the  19th  September,  1861,  at  St.  Louis,  said  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  had  purchased  of  Martin  &  Brothers,  clothiers  of  said  city,  3,000 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


17 


blue  blouses  for  two  dollars  each,  he,  said  McKinstry,  then  and  there  purchased 
from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  the  same  3,000  blue  blouses  for  the  price  of  three 
dollars  each,  and  issued  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  therefor  a  voucher,  of 
which,  so  far  as  the  same  relates  to  said  blouses,  the  following  is  a  copy : 

'No.  12. 

1  The  United  States  to  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  Dr. 

'1861. 

'September.— 3,000  blue  blouses,  at  S3   $9,  000  00 

'  I  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles  have 
been  accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the  30th 
September,  1861. 

'J.  McKINSTRY, 

Major  and  Assistant  Quartermaster 

He,  said  McKinstry,  then  and  there  intending  to  secure  thereby  large  gains  to 
said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  and  others  in  collusion  with  them,  to  the  waste  of  the 
public  funds." 

Specification  46. — "  In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  21st  September,  1861,  at  Saint  Louis,  having  need  to 
purchase  soldiers'  pants  for  his  department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the 
same  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  value ;  but,  without  any  advertisement 
for  proposals,  authorized  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  hardware  dealers,  to  furnish  the 
same  to  him;  and  when  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  had  purchased  then  and 
there,  of  Messrs.  Martin  &  Bro.,  nine  hundred  and  four  pairs  of  soldiers'  infantry 
pants,  for  the  price  of  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents  per  pair,  he,  said  Major  Justus 
McKinstry,  quartermaster,  purchased  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  the  same 
nine  hundred  and  four  pairs  of  pants  at  the  price  of  three  dollars  and  seventy- 
five  cents  per  pair,  and  afterwards  issued  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  a  voucher 
therefor,  which,  so  far  as  relates  to  said  nine  hundred  and  four  pants,  is  in  the 
words  and  figures  following,  to  wit : 

'No.  12. 

'  The  United  States  to  Child,  Pratt     Fox,  Dr. 

'1861. 

'September  26.— 904  pairs  pants,  at  S3  75   S3,  390  00 

'I  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles  have 
been  accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the  30th  of 
September,  1861. 

'j.  McKinstry, 

'  Brigadier  General  and  Quartermaster.'' 

He,  said  Major  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  secure  to  said 
Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  and  others  in  collusion  with  them,  large  gains,  to  the  wasting 
of  the  public  funds,  over  the  market  value  of  said  articles." 

Specification  47. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  21st  September,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase  for 
his  department  infantry  jackets,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the 
market  nor  for  the  market  price ;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals, 
authorized  Messrs.  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  dealers  in  hardware,  to  furnish  the  same 
H.  Rep.  Com.  49  2 


18 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS 


to  him;  and  when  said  Child,  I 'rati  cV  Fox  had  purchased  then  and  there  from 
Messrs.  Martin  cV  Bros.,  clothiers,  of  Sainl  Louis,  nine  hundred  and  four  jackets, 
at  the  price  of  $3  75  each,  lie,  said  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  purchased  from 
said  Child.  Pratt  &  Fox  the  same  nine  hundred  and  four  infantry  jackets  for 
the  price  of  $5  75  each;  and  afterwards,  on  the  26th  September,  1861,  issued 
to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  a  voucher  therefor,  which,  so  far  as  relates  to  said 
nine  hundred  and  four  infantry  jackets,  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to 
wit  : 

'No.  12. 

•  The  United  States  to  Child,  Pratt  8f  Fox,  Dr. 

'1861. 

1  September  26. — 904  infantry  jackets,  at  $5  75    $5,  198  00 

'I  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles  have 
been  accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the  30th  of 
September,  1S61. 

'J.  McKINSTRY, 

'  Brigadier  General  and  Quartermaster? 

He,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  secure  to  said  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  large  gains  above  the  market  value  of  the  articles,  to  the  waste 
of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  48. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  afore- 
said, having  need,  about  the  1st  September,  1861,  to  purchase  for  his  depart- 
ment cavalry  equipments,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  mar- 
ket nor  for  the  market  value ;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  au- 
thorized Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  hardware  dealers,  of  St.  Louis,  to  furnish  them  to 
him ;  and  when  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  had  purchased  in  the  market  293  sets 
of  cavalry  equipments  for  about  the  price  of  $29  50  each,  he,  said  McKins- 
try, did  purchase  the  same  cavalry  equipments  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox 
for  $40  each,  and  afterwards  issue  vouchers  therefor,  which,  so  far  as  relates 
to  said  cavalry  equipments,  are  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit : 

'No.  12. 

«  The  United  States  to  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  Dr. 

'1861. 

'  September  5. — 100  sets  cavalry  equipments,  complete,  at  $40. ...  $4,  000  00 

'  I  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles 
have  been  accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the 
30th  September,  1861. 

'  J.  McKINSTRY, 
'Brigadier  General  and  Quartermaster.' 

'  No.  12. 


'  The  United  States  to  Child,  Pratt  Sf  Fox,  Dr. 

i  1861. 

■  September  12. — 193  sets  cavalry  equipments,  at  $40   $7,  720  00 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


19 


4 1  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  aud  that  the  articles 
have  been  accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  on  the 
30th  September,  1861. 

4  J.  McKENSTRY, 
■  Brigadier  General  and  Quartermaster' 

He,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  intending-  to  secure  to  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  large 
gains  above  the  market  value  of  the  said  articles,  to  the  wasting  of  the  public 
funds." 

Specification  49. — "  In  this  :  that  he,  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  afore- 
said, on  or  about  the  25th  August,  1S61,  at  St.  Louis,  having  need  to  purchase 
for  his  department  covered  canteens,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  them  in 
the  market  nor  for  the  market  value ;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  pro- 
posals, authorized  one  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  hardware  dealers,  to  furnish  them ; 
and  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  between  the  28th  August  and  the  6th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1861,  purchased  in  the  market  about  fifteen  thousand  canteens,  at  the  price 
of  about  36i  cents  each;  and  as  fast  as  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  purchased  said 
covered  canteens,  he,  said  McKinstry,  as  quartermaster,  purchased  the  same 
canteens  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  at  the  price  of  60  cents  each;  he, 
said  McKinstry,  thereby  intending  to  secure  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  large 
gains  above  the  market  value  of  said  articles,  to  the  waste  and  squandering  of 
the  public  funds." 

Specification  50. — "In  this  :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  issued  at  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  a  voucher  in  the  'words  and  figures  fol- 
lowing, to  wit  : 

1  The  United  States  to  Alexander  Kelsy. 


4  1861. 

'July  30. — 28,  000  pounds  hay,  at  70  cents  per  hundred   $196  00 

514J4,  18,000  pounds  oats,  at  25  cents   128  55 

10/^g,  6,000  pounds  corn,  at  25  cents,  for  Lieutenant 

Shreed's  volunteers,  Cape  Girardeau   26  80 

4  July  29.-3,000  bushels  (105,000  pounds)  oats,  at  25  cents,  for  Major 
Spicer's  brigade  Missouri  volunteers,  Mexico  mis- 
sion   750  00 

'Aug.  4. — 5,000  bushels  (175,000  pounds,)  oats,  at  26  cents,  for 

Major  Hatch,  quartermaster,  Cairo   1,  300  00 


'2,401  35 


4 1  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles  have 
been  accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  quarter  ending  the  30th  Sep- 
tember, 1861. 

4  J.  McKIXSTRY, 

'Assistant  Quartermaster.* 

Which  voucher  so  issued  was  and  is  false,  in  this :  that  said  Kelsy  did  not  sell 
the  United  States  the  quantity  named,  nor  any  hay,  on  or  about  the  30th  July, 
1861,  or  any  other  time;  did  not  sell  the  United  States  the  quantity  named,  or 
any  oats,  on  or  about  the  29th  or  30th  July,  or  4th  August,  1861,  or  any  other 
time ;  did  not  sell  the  United  States  the  quantity  of  corn  named,  or  any  quantity 
of  corn  at  the  time  named,  or  any  time ;  and  said  voucher  was  and  is  false  in 
every  particular ;  he,  said  Major  McKinstry,  thereby  intending  to  prostitute  his 


20 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


office  to  secure  to  one  Joseph  S.  Pease,  to  whom  he  delivered  said  voucher,  some 
benefit  contrary  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  army." 

Specification  51. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermas- 
ter aforesaid,  having  need  to  purchase  frying-pans  for  his  department,  did  not 
and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  value;  but. 
about  the  1st  September,  1861,  authorized  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  to  furnish  the 
same  to  him;  and  when  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  had  purchased  a  large  quan- 
tity, about  five  hundred  frying-pans,  from  John  Gray  and  Company,  Pittsburg, 
Pennsylvania,  for  about  seventeen  cents  each,  he,  said  McKinstry,  purchased  the 
same  frying-pans,  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  at  50  cents  each.  This  at  St. 
Louis,  on  the  1st,  5th,  6th,  12th,  14th,  26th,  and  30th  days  of  September,  1861. 
Thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  secure  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  large 
gains  above  the  market  value  of  said  articles,  to  the  waste  and  squandering  of 
the  public  funds." 

Specification  52. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster  afore- 
said, having  need,  about  the  15th  August,  1861,  to  purchase  axes  with  handles  for 
his  department,  he,  said  McKinstry,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in 
the  market  nor  for  the  market  value;  but  authorized  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox, 
without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  to  furnish  the  same ;  and  so,  between 
the  day  last  mentioned  and  the  6th  October,  1861,  said  McKinstry  purchased 
from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  about  1,200  axes  with  handles,  at  one  dollar  fifty 
cents  each,  the  market  value  where  of  was  about  one  dollar  and  fifteen  cents  each 
to  the  great  waste  of  the  public  funds,  and  the  gross  disregard  of  the  public- 
interests." 

Specification  53. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  McKinstry,  having  need,  about 
the  20th  August,  1861,  to  purchase  hatchets  and  handles  for  his  department,  did 
not  and  would  not  purchase  them  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  value ;  but, 
without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  authorized  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  to  fur- 
nish the  same  to  him;  and  in  this  way,  on  said  20th  August,  and  on  divers  days 
between  that  day  and  October  6,  1861,  purchased  about  one  thousand  hatchets 
and  handles  from  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  for  seventy-five  cents  each,  the  mar- 
ket value  whereof  was  about  47  cents  each,  to  the  great  disregard  of  the  public 
interests  and  the  waste  of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  54. — "  In  this :  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermas- 
ter, on  or  about  the  4th  September,  1861,  at  Saint  Louis,  having  need  to  pur- 
chase shoes  for  his  department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the 
market  nor  for  the  market  value,  but  then  and  there  authorized  one  Child,  Pratt 
&  Fox,  a  hardware  house,  to  furnish  the  same  to  him ;  and  when  said  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox,  about  the  4th  September,  1861,  had  purchased  of  Maury,  Drake 
&  Co.,  shoe  dealers,  413  pair  of  shoes  for  one  dollar  thirty  cents  each,  he,  said 
McKinstry,  then  and  there  purchased  of  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  the  same  413  pair 
of  shoes  for  one  dollar  seventy-five  cents  each,  and  issued  to  said  Child,  Pratt 
&  Fox  a  voucher  therefor,  which,  so  far  as  relates  to  said  413  pair  of  shoes,  is  in 
the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit : 

<No.  12. 

1  The  United  States  to  Child,  Pratt  Sf  Fox,  Dr. 

'1861. 

'  September  5. — 413  pair  shoes,  at  $1  75   $722  75 

'  I  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct  and  just,  and  that  the  articles  have 
been  accounted  for  on  my  property  return  for  the  30th  September,  1861. 

'J.  McKINSTRY, 
'Major,  Assistant  Quartermaster.' 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


21 


He,  said  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  secure  to  said  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  large  gains  above  the  market  value  of  said  articles,  to  the  waste 
of  the  public  funds." 

Specification  55. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  having  need,  about  the  20th  August,  1861,  to  purchase  shoes  for  his 
department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the 
market  value ;  but,  without  any  advertisement  for  proposals,  authorized  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  to  furnish  the  same  to  him;  and  when,  on  the  day  aforesaid,  and 
between  that  day  and  the  1st  October,  1861,  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  had  pur- 
chased, in  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  from  Maury,  Drake  &  Co.,  James  F.  Comstock 
&  Co.,  Fiske,  Knight  &  Co.,  North,  Scott  &  Co.,  Claflin,  Allen  &  Co.,  and 
J ohn  R.  Leonberger,  shoe  dealers,  about  ten  thousand  pair  of  shoes,  for  about 
one  dollar  and  thirty  cents  on  the  average  each,  he,  said  McKinstry,  then  and 
there  purchased  the  same  shoes,  as  quartermaster,  from  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox, 
at  about  the  price  of  one  dollar  seventy-five  cents  each;  he,  said  McKinstry, 
thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  secure  to  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  large  gains 
above  the  market  value  of  said  articles,  to  the  wasting  of  the  public  funds  and 
gross  disregard  of  the  interests  of  the  service." 

Specification  56. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  20th  July,  1861,  at  Saint  Louis,  purchased  of 
Child,  Pratt  &  Fox,  hardware  dealers,  a  large  quantity  of  worthless  shoes,  for 
about  one  dollar  seventy-five  cents  each,  being  the  same  lot  afterwards  issued 
to  Colonel  Peter  E.  Blond's  regiment,  while  stationed  at  Ironton,  Missouri;  he, 
skid  McKinstry,  acting  in  that  behalf  in  gross  neglect  and  disregard  of  the  in- 
terests of  the  service." 

Specification  57. — "In  this:  that  on  or  about  the  1st  day  of  August,  1861, 
when  a  lot  of  worthless  shoes  had  been  issued  by  his  department  to  Colonel 
Peter  E.  Blond's  regiment,  then  stationed  at  Ironton,  Missouri,  and  Oliver  D. 
Filley  and  John  T.  Witzig  had  gone  to  his,  McKinstry's,  office,  in  Saint  Louis, 
to  inform  him  of  the  fact,  and  to  ascertain  who  had  sold  said  lot  of  shoes  to  the 
department,  and  had  produced  to  him  a  sample  of  the  shoes,  he,  said  McKinstry, 
failed  and  refused  to  make  the  proper  investigation  to  detect  the  imposition,  and 
took  away  and  secreted  the  sample  of  said  worthless  shoes,  with  intent  to  screen 
and  protect  the  offending  party." 

Specification  58. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  McKinstry,  quartermaster 
aforesaid,  about  the  1st  August,  1861,  having  need  to  purchase  knapsacks  for 
his  department,  did  not  and  would  not  purchase  the  same  in  the  market  nor  for 
the  market  value;  but,  without  advertisement  for  proposals,  authorized  Child, 
Pratt  &  Fox  to  furnish  the  same ;  and  when,  on  the  day  last  mentioned,  and  on 
divers  days  between  that  and  the  6th  October,  1861,  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  had 
purchased  in  the  market  about  15,000  knapsacks,  at  about  $2  30  each,  on  the 
average,  he,  said  McKinstry,  quartermaster,  purchased  the  same  knapsacks 
from  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  at  from  S3  25  each  to  $3  50  each;  he,  said  McKinstry, 
thereby  intending  to  secure  to  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  large  gains  above  the  market 
value  of  said  articles,  to  the  wasting  of  the  public  funds,  and  gross  disregard  of 
the  interests  of  the  service." 

Specification  59. — "Between  the  15th  August,  1861,  and  1st  October,  1861, 
McKinstry  bought  of  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  over  20,000  pairs  of  soldiers'  drawers, 
at  60  cents,  for  which  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  paid  about  42  cents  each,  and  which 
he  could  have  bought  at  that  price,  if  he  had  seen  fit." 

Specification  60. — "That  between  the  10th  August,  1861,  and  6th  October, 
1861,  Quartermaster  McKinstry  bought  of  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  about  1,500 
spades,  at  a  price  of  from  $1  each  to  $1  15  each — an  exorbitant  price,  the  mar- 
ket value  being  about  65  cents  each." 

Specification  61. — "In  this:  that  he,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  on  or  about 
the  1st  day  of  July,  1861,  at  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  having  need  to  purchase  a 


22 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


large  quantity  of  army  supplies  for  his  department,  did  not  and  would  not  pur- 
chase the  same  in  the  market  nor  for  the  market  value;  but,  without  advertise- 
ment for  proposals,  authorized  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  to  furnish  the  same  to  him; 
and  Baid  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  did,  under  such  authority,  purchase,  in  the  city  of 
St.  Louis,  a  vast  quantity  of  army  supplies,  consisting  of  cavalry  jackets,  and 
pants  and  coats;  infantry  pants,  jackets,  and  coats;  canteens,  covered  and  un- 
covered; cavalry  equipments ;  blankets ;  camp-kettles ;  mess-pans;  picket-pins; 
axes,  with  handles;  shovels;  hatchets,  with  handles;  boots  and  shoes ;  coffee- 
potS;  coffee-mills ;  spades;  canteens ;  tin  plates ;  knapsacks;  blouses;  flannels; 
pickaxes  and  handles;  blue  cloth  ;  water-buckets;  spurs  and  straps ;  army  caps; 
horseshoes;  muleshoes;  horseshoe  nails;  drawers;  flannel  shirts;  fry-pans; 
wheelbarrows;  horse  brushes;  horse  rasps;  specie  boxes;  currycombs,  and 
other  articles,  or  some  of  them,  to  a  large  amount — say  three  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  more  or  less ;  and  did  purchase,  under  such  authority,  in  the  United 
States,  east  of  the  Mississippi  river,  a  large  amount  of  such  articles,  or  some  of 
them — say  three  hundred  thousand  dollars,  more  or  less — in  the  city  of  St. 
Louis;  and  having  so  purchased  the  same  articles,  he,  said  McKinstry,  pur- 
chased the  articles  so  purchased  by  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  in  the  city  of  St. 
Louis  at  an  advance  upon  the  price  stipulated  for  by  them  of  from  ten  per  cent, 
to  one  hundred  per  cent.;  and  he,  said  McKinstry,  did  purchase  from  said 
Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  the  articles  so  purchased  by  them  east  of  the  Mississippi 
river  at  an  advance  upon  the  price  stipulated  for  by  them  of  from  twenty  per 
cent,  to  one  hundred  per  cent. ;  he,  said  McKinstry,  quartermaster  aforesai(J, 
thereby  intending  to  secure  to  said  Child,  Pratt  &  Fox  large  gains,  to  the  wast- 
ing of  the  public  funds,  and  to  the  disregard  of  the  interests  of  the  service," 

To  all  which  specifications,  and  to  the  charge,  the  accused  pleaded  "Not 
guilty." 

Finding. 

The  court,  having  maturely  weighed  and  considered  the  testimony  adduced, 
finds  the  accused,  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster,  United  States  army, 
as  follows : 

Of  the  1st  and  2d  Specifications,  "Not  Guilty." 

Of  the  3d  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'no  better  than  Col- 
burn's,'  and  'Almon  Thompson,'  and  'and  F.  J.  Flannagan.'  " 
Of  the  4th,  5th,  and  6th  Specifications,  "Not  Guilty." 

Of  the  7th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'the  market  value  ot 
which  was  about  ninety  dollars  only,  each,'  and  'and  others  in  collusion  with 
him.' " 

Of  the  8th  Specification,  "  Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'the  market  value  of 
which  on  the  average  was  about  one  hundred  and  ten  dollars  only,  each,'  and 
'and  others  in  collusion  with  him.'  " 

Of  the  9th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'about  one  thousand,' 
and  'the  market  value  of  which  was  about  eighty  dollars  each,'  and  'and  others 
in  collusion  with  him.'  " 

Of  the  10th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'about  three  hundred,' 
and  'and  others  in  collusion  with  him.'  " 

Of  the  11th  Specification,  "Not  guilty.  Find  the  facts  as  set  forth  in  this 
specification,  but,  owing  to  the  accused's  acting  to  some  extent  under  the  in- 
structions of  his  commanding  general,  attach  no  criminality  to  the  accused." 

Of  the  12th  Specification,  "Not  guilty." 

Of  the  13th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'five  hundred,'  sub- 
stituting the  words  four  hundred 'therefor  ;  and  for  the  words  'ninety  dollars,' 
substituting  one  hundred  dollars-,  and  in  the  place  of 'one  hundred  dollars,'  sub- 
stituting one  hundred  and  fifteen  dollars." 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


23 


Of  the  14th  Specification,  "Not  guilty;  but  find  the  fact  that  Major  McKinstry 
did  pay  one  B.  F.  Fox  an  additional  allowance  of  twenty-five  dollars  per  head  on 
a  certain  number  of  artillery  horses,  but,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
attach  no  criminality  thereto,  it  appearing  to  be  a  simple  act  of  justice  to  Fox." 

Of  the  15th,  16th,  and  17th  Specifications,  "Not  guilty." 

Of  the  18th  Specification,  "Gruilty;  substituting  in  the  place  of  'one  hundred 
dollars '  the  words  one  hundred,  and  one  hundred  and  ten  dollars,  and  except- 
ing the  words  'refused  and,'  'and  F.  J.  Flannagan,'  'and  Flannagan,'  and  'he, 
said  McKinstry,  thereby  then  and  there  intending  to  compel  said  Everett  to  turn 
his  horse  over  to  said  Elleard  and  Flannagan,  and  other  contractors  at  higher 
prices.' " 

Of  the  19th  Specification,  "Not  guilty;  but  find  the  fact  of  McKinstry's  re- 
fusing to  buy  of  John  Allen,  but,  under  the  circumstances,  attach  no  criminality 
thereto." 

Of  the  20th  Specification,  "Not  guilty.  Find  the  fact  that  the  accused  did 
refuse  to  purchase  of  Josephus  Irvine  mules  at  ($115)  one  hundred  and  fifteen 
dollars,  but,  under  the  circumstances  attending  the  offer  of  said  Irvine,  attach  no 
criminality  thereto." 

Of  the  21st  Specification,  "Not  guilty." 

Of  the  22d  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'and  others  in  collu- 
sion with  him.'  " 

Of  the  23d,  24th,  25th,  26th,  27th,  and  28th  Specifications,  "Not  guilty." 
Of  the  29th  Specification,  "Guilty." 
Of  the  30th  Specification,  "Guilty." 

Of  the  31st,  32d,  33d,  and  34th  Specifications,  "Not  guilty." 

Of  the  35th  Specification,  "Not  guilty;  but  find  the  fact  that  the  accused 
purchased  of  Joseph  S.  Pease  a  number  of  tents,  at  an  advance  upon  the  price 
said  Pease  paid  one  Dodge,  but  attach  no  criminality  thereto  under  the  circum- 
stances." 

Of  the  36th  Specification,  "  Guilty,  excepting  the  words  '  and  others  in  collu- 
sion with  him.'  " 

Of  the  37th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'authorized  one  Joseph 
S.  Pease  to  purchase  up  the  tents  in  the  Saint  Louis  market,  and  to  contract  to 
purchase  these  articles  from  the  tentmakers  of  the  city  at  the  best  terms  he  could 
procure,  and,'  and  'and  others  in  collusion  with  him.'  " 

Of  the  38th  Specification,  "  Guilty,  excepting  the  words  '  and  others  in  collu- 
sion with  them.'  " 

Of  the  39th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'and  as  fast  as,'  and 
*and  others  in  collusion  with  them.'  " 

Of  the  40th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'as  fast  as  they  pur- 
chased them,'  and  'and  others  in  collusion  with  them.'  " 

Of  the  41st  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  and  figures  '  45  cents 
each  for  a  portion,  and,'  and  'for  the  residue.'  " 

Of  the  42d  Specification,  "Not  guilty." 

Of  the  43d  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'and  others  in  collu- 
sion with  them.' " 

Of  the  44th  Specification,  "Guilty." 

Of  the  45th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'and  others  in  collu- 
sion with  them.'  " 

Of  the  46th  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'and  others  in  collu- 
sion with  them.'  " 

Of  the  47th  Specification,  "Guilty." 
Of  the  48th  Specification,  "Not  guilty." 
Of  the  49th  Specification,  "Guilty." 

Of  the  50th,  51st,  52d,  and  53d  Specifications,  "Not  guilty." 
Of  the  54th  Specification,  "Guilty." 


24 


GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS. 


Of  the  55th  Specification,  "Guilty." 

Of  the  56th  .and  57th  Specif  cations,  "Not  guilty." 

Of  the  5Sth  Specification,  "Guilty,  substituting  the  figures  82  40,  in  the  place 
ofS2  30." 

Of  the  59th  Specification,  "Not  guilty;  the  specification  failing  to  give  the 
place,  and  also  failing  to  designate  in  a  proper  manner  the  person  charged." 

Of  the  60th  Specification,  "Not  guilty;  the  specification  failing  to  give  the 
place,  and  also  failing  to  designate  in  a  proper  manner  the  person  charged." 

Of  the  61st  Specification,  "Guilty,  excepting  the  words  'upon  the  price  stipu- 
lated for  by  them,'  wherever  they  are  written  in  this  specification." 

Of  the  Charge,  "  Guilty." 

Sentence. 

And  the  court  does  therefore  sentence  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quarter- 
master, United  States  army,  "  To  he  dismissed  the  service." 

II.  The  foregoing  proceedings,  findings,  and  sentence  are  approved;  but,  ex- 
ercising the  discretion  given  by  Article  89  of  the  Rules  and  Articles  of  War, 
the  execution  of  the  sentence  is  suspended  until  the  pleasure  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  can  be  known,  upon  the  recommendation  of  some  members  of 
the  court  for  a  remission  or  mitigation  of  the  sentence,  this  suspension  and  the 
proceedings  of  the  court-martial  being  transmitted  to  the  President  for  his  de- 
termination. 

H.  W.  HALLECK, 

General-in-  Chief. 

Headquarters  of  the  Army, 

Washington,  January  26,  1863. 

The  following  are  the  orders  of  the  President  : 

The  sentence  in  the  foregoing  case  will  be  carried  into  execution  by  the  dis- 
missal of  Major  Justus  McKinstry,  quartermaster,  United  States  army,  from  the 
service  of  the  United  States. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

Washington,  January  28,  1863. 

III.  The  general  court-martial  of  which  Brigadier  General  P.  St.  George 
Cooke  is  president,  is  dissolved. 

By  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War  : 

L.  THOMAS, 

Adjutant  General. 

Official : 


Assistant  Adjutant  General. 


JOURNAL  OF  THE  COMMITTEE. 


New  York,  September  9,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  a  call  of  the  chairman.  Present: 
Mr.  Washburne,  chairman,  and  Mr.  Steele. 

George  Dennison,  Rufus  F.  Andrews,  Hamilton  Bruce,  DeWitt  C. 
Graham,  Thomas  J.  Brown,  Alexander  Isaacs,  and  James  B.  Archer 
were  examined  as  witnesses. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  ten  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

New  York,  September  10,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Wash- 
burne, chairman,  and  Mr.  Steele. 

Samuel  G.  Ogden  and  Hiram  Barney  were  examined  as  witnesses. 
The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

New  York,  November  20,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  a  call  of  the  chairman.  Present: 
Mr.  Steele. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  Saturday,  the  22d  instant. 

New  York,  November  22,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Steele, 
Mr.  Fenton,  and  Mr.  Holman. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  upon  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Washington,  December  4,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  a  call  of  the  chairman.  Present: 
The  chairman,  Mr.  Washburne,  and  Messrs.  Holman,  Fenton,  Dawes, 
Steele,  and  Yan  Wyck. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  in  New  York  on  Wednesday,  the 
17th  instant. 

New  York,  December  17,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Wash- 
burne, chairman,  and  Messrs.  Fenton,  Dawes,  and  Steele. 

The  committee  adopted  the  following  resolution  unanimously: 
^Resolved,  That  inasmuch  as  certain  testimony  has  been  taken  by 
one  member  of  the  committee,  in  the  absence  of  a  quorum,  touching 
the  official  conduct  of  certain  federal  officers  in  New  York,  under  ob 
jection  from  them,  therefore  the  committee  will  examine  such  testi. 


26 


JOURNAL  OF  COMMITTEE. 


mony,  and  whenever  it  appears  that  the  testimony  of  any  such  wit- 
ness so  taken  is  found  to  affect  the  official  conduct  of  any  such  person, 
such  witness  shall  be  re-examined,  and  so  far  as  his  testimony,  on  re- 
examination, affects  the  official  conduct  of  any  federal  officer  in  New 
York,  it  shall  be  submitted  to  him  for  his  inspection." 

The  committee  then  adjourned  until  ten  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

New  York,  December  18,  1862. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.    Present:  Mr.  Wash- 
burne,  chairman,  and  Messrs.  Holman,  Fenton,  Dawes,  Steele,  and 
Van  Wyck. 

Samuel  G.  Ogden  and  William  D.  Robinson  were  examined  as  wit- 
nesses. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  ten  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

New  York,  December  19,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present  :  All  the 
members  of  the  committee. 

Horatio  F.  Averill,  Henry  A.  Cargill,  James  B.  Craig,  and  Francis 
Wigand  were  examined  as  witnesses. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  ten  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

New  York,  December  20,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  All  the 
members. 

Daniel  Jackson,  Munson  Gray,  and  Stewart  Van  Vliet  were  exam- 
ined as  witnesses. 

Mr.  Van  Wyck  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  resolu- 
tion of  December  17  was  adopted,  and  substitute  the  following  : 

"  Whereas  many  witnesses  were  examined  by  one  member  of  the 
committee  in  the  absence  of  a  quorum,  in  the  month  of  March  last, 
affecting  the  amount  of  moneys  received  by  certain  federal  officers  in 
this  city  :  Therefore — 

"  Resolved,  That  at  the  request  of  any  of  said  public  officers  any  of 
the  said  witnesses  so  examined  be  again  subpoenaed,  and  the  testi- 
mony so  taken  be  read  to  them,  and  such  corrections  or  additions  be 
made  as  they  may  desire;  also  that  new  witnesses  be  subpoenaed  and 
examined  at  the  request  of  said  officers. 

' '  Resolved,  That  said  testimony  has  already  been  taken  at  much  ex- 
pense to  the  government,  and  the  same  should  now  be  used,  except 
in  those  particulars  where  the  witness  pronounces  the  same  incorrect, 
or  he  or  some  other  party  desires  to  add  thereto  or  explain." 

The  question  was  put,  and  it  was  decided  in  the  negative — yeas, 
one;  nays,  five,  as  follows: 

Yeas. — Mr.  Van  Wyck. 

Nays. — Messrs.  Holman,  Fenton,  Dawes,  Steele,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
After  the  vote  upon  the  foregoing  resolution,  Mr.  Van  Wyck  pre- 


JOURNAL  OF  COMMITTEE. 


27 


sented  to  the  committee,  for  action,  sundry  other  papers,  which  the 
committee  declined  to  receive  or  enter  upon  their  journal. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Yan  Wyck,  it  was  ordered  that  his  name  be  en- 
tered on  the  journal  as  voting  against  the  adoption  of  the  resolution 
of  the  17th  instant. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  Monday  next  at  ten  o'clock  a.  m. 

New  York,  December  22,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Wash- 
burne,  the  chairman,  and  Messrs.  Holman,  Fenton,  Dawes,  and 
Steele. 

Robert  Murray,  Joseph  S.  Smith,  Simon  Stevens,  and  Isaac  Hen- 
derson were  examined  as  witnesses. 

The  committee  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning  at 
ten  o'clock. 

New  York,  December  23,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Wash- 
burne,  the  chairman,  and  Messrs.  Fenton,  Dawes,  and  Steele. 

George  F.  Betts,  Kenneth  G.  White,  Cornelius  Yanderbilt,  and 
Simon  Stevens  were  examined  as  witnesses. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  Wednesday,  the  31st  instant. 

New  York,  December  31,  1862. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Wash- 
burne,  chairman,  and  Mr.  Steele. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  Friday,  the  2d  of  January. 

New  York,  January  2,  1863. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Wash- 
burne,  chairman,  and  Mr.  Fenton. 

Samuel  Churchman,  C.  S.  Franklin,  George  Dennison,  and  Charles 
P.  Clinch  were  examined  as  witnesses. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning  at  ten  o'clock. 

New  York,  January  3,  1863. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Wash- 
burne,  chairman,  and  Mr.  Fenton  and  Mr.  Yan  Wyck. 

Amos  Clark,  John  K.  Buhner,  William  Allen  Butler,  B.  W.  Jones, 
George  Dennison,  and  Frederick  W.  Jennings  were  examined  as  wit- 
nesses. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  on  Saturday,  the  10th  instant. 

New  York,  January  10,  1863. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present:  Mr.  Dawes. 

Francis  M.  Bixby,  William  D.  Robinson,  Augustus  Schell,  Samuel 
G.  Ogden,  George  Bisbee,  Henry  B.  Stanton,  and  John  McKenzie 
were  examined  as  witnesses. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  upon  the  call  of  the  chairman. 


28 


JOURNAL  OF  COMMITTEE. 


Washington,  January  16,  1863. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  a  call  of  the  chairman.  Present: 
all  the  members. 

Simon  Stevens  was  examined  as  a  witness. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Washington,  January  26,  1863. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  a  call  of  the  chairman.  Present: 
Mr.  Washburne,  chairman,  and  Messrs.  Dawes,  Steele,  and  Van 
Wyck. 

William  T.  Duvall  was  examined  as  a  witness. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  upon  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Washington,  February  11,  1863. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  the  call  of  the  chairman.  Present: 
Mr.  Washburne.  chairman,  and  Messrs.  Holman,  Fenton.  and  Van 
Wyck. 

On  motion, 

Ordered.  That  certain  testimony  taken  by  Mr.  Van  Wyck  in  New 
York,  without  the  authority  of  the  committee,  be  deposited  by  the 
clerk  of  this  committee  with  the  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, with  directions  to  the  said  Clerk  to  hold  it  in  his  possession, 
subject  only  to  the  inspection  of  any  member  of  the  committee. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

New  York,  February  14,  1863. 

The  committee  met  on  a  call  of  the  chairman.  Present  :  Mr.  Wash- 
burne, chairman,  and  Messrs.  Holman  and  Van  Wyck. 

George  W.  Yerby,  Daniel  C.  Birdsell,  David  R.  Martin,  and  Jo- 
seph Kirkpatrick  were  examined  as  witnesses. 
On  motion, 

Ordered,  That  on  the  expiration  of  this  Congress,  all  the  papers 
which  have  been  before  this  committee,  or  are  in  any  way  connected 
with  the  investigations  of  the  committee,  be  sealed  up  by  the  clerk 
of  the  committee,  and  deposited  with  the  Clerk  of  the  House  of 
Representatives. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  upon  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Washington,  February  17,  1863. 

The  committee  met  on  the  call  of  the  chairman.  Present  :  Messrs. 
Holman,  Fenton,  and  Van  Wyck. 

Cornelius  Wendell  was  examined  as  a  witness. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  Saturday,  the  21st  instant. 

Washington,  February  21,  1863. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.    Present  :  All  the 
members. 

On  motion, 

Resolved.  That  the  notice  given  to  the  Quartermaster's  department 
by  the  committee  to  withhold  a  certain  amount  of  money  due  to 


JOURNAL  OF  COMMITTEE. 


29 


Amos  Clark  be  withdrawn;  and  they  recommend  such  reinspection  of 
the  balance  of  the  clothing  on  hand,  and  re-examination  of  the  subject, 
as  will  enable  the  department  to  determine  more  nearly  whether  the 
contract  has  been  substantially  performed. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Washington,  February  26,  1863. 

The  committee  met  upon  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Captain  Charles  E.  Fuller  was  examined  as  a  witness. 

The  committee  adjourned  to  meet  upon  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Washington,  March  2,  1863. 

The  committee  met  on  the  call  of  the  chairman. 
Bayard  Clark  was  examined  as  a  witness. 
On  motion, 

Ordered,  That  Mr.  Fenton  be  directed  to  submit  the  final  report 
to  the  House. 

The  committee  thereupon  adjourned  sine  die. 


INDEX  TO  TESTIMONY. 


Page. 

George  Dennison   1, 100, 110 

Rufus  F.  Andrews   2 

Hamilton  Bruce   .   5 

De  Witt  C.  Graham   7 

Thomas  J.  Brown    8 

Alexander  Isaacs  _  -   9 

James  B.  Archer   10 

Samuel  G.  Ogden   10, 13, 126 

Hiram  Barney.   11 

Wm.  D.  RobiDson   36,124 

Horatio  F.  Averell.   39 

Henry  A.  Cargill   45 

James  B.Craig   51 

Francis  Wigand    55 

Daniel  Jackson    57 

Munson  Gray   _   59 

Stewart  Van  Vliet   62 

Robert  Murray   67 

Joseph  S.  Smith..   69 

Simon  Stevens   72,  83, 116 

Isaac  Henderson    84 

George  F.  Be tts   85 

Kenneth  G.  White   87 

Samuel  Churchman   90 

C.  S.  Franklin   98 

Charles  P.  Clinch   101 

Amos  Clark   102 

John  K.  Bulmer   104 

Wm.  Allen  Butler   106 

Frederick  W.  Jennings   114 

Francis  M.  Bixby   119 

Augustus  Schell   125 

George  Bisbee  „   127 

H.B.Stanton   129 

John  McKenzie   131 

Hiram  Barney   132 

William  T.  Duvall   136 

D.  H.  Vinion   138 

George  W.  Yerby   140 

Daniel  C.  Birdsell   149 

David  R.  Martin   153 

Joseph  Kirkpatrick   157 

Wm.  Boardman   162 

Juan  C.  De  Mier   168 

Madison  M.  Burt   174 


TESTIMONY. 


New  York,  September  9,  1862, 

George  Dennison  sworn: 

Question.  State  your  official  position, 

Answer.  I  am  naval  officer  of  the  port  of  New  York. 

Question.  Be  good  enough  to  state  the  amount  of  money  you  have 
received  since  you  accepted  the  office  of  naval  officer  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  as  salary,  as  your  portion  of  the  proceeds  of  seizures  made,  or 
from  any  other  sources  whatever,  by  virtue  of  your  office. 

Answer.  My  salary  is  fixed  by  law,  and  amounts  to  a  little  less 
than  §5,000  a  year  ;  and  the  only  other  money  I  have  received  by 
virtue  of  my  office  has  been  from  the  proceeds  of  seizures. 

Question.  Please  state  the  facts  in  reference  to  those  seizures. 

Answer.  Seizures  are  made  for  violation  of  the  revenue  laws,  such 
as  smuggling,  false  invoices,  under  valuation  of  goods,  and  other  acts 
of  fraud  upon  the  revenue.  All  the  moneys  I  have  received  have 
been  received  from  Mr.  Ogden,  the  auditor  of  the  custom-house,  and 
he  can  testify  to  the  amount  I  have  received,  when  received,  and  from 
what  source.  I  would  say,  also,  that  I  have  received  no  money  by 
virtue  of  my  office  except  through  him.  The  money  is  always  paid 
to  Mr.  Ogden  in  the  first  instance,  and  he  makes  the  division,  paying 
to  me  my  share,  for  which  I  give  him  my  receipt. 

Question.  Have  all  the  amounts  you  have  received  from  Mr.  Ogden 
and  receipted  for  been  moneys  to  which  you  were  yourself  entitled  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  all  except  some  amounts  which  have  been  paid  to 
informers. 

Question.  Please  explain  how  that  is. 

Answer.  There  are  cases  where  parties  dislike  to  and  will  not  ap- 
pear as  informers,  but  are  willing  to  furnish  the  revenue  officers  with 
information  which  will  lead  to  conviction,  upon  the  express  under- 
standing that  their  names  are  not  to  be  used  or  exposed.  In  such 
cases  the  revenue  officers  have  paid  the  parties  twenty-five  per  cent, 
of  what  they  receive  as  their  share  of  the  proceeds.  In  all  cases  the 
government  gets  one-half  of  the  proceeds,  and  the  amount  that  is  paid 
to  informers  comes  out  of  the  share  of  the  officers,  and  not  out  of  the 
share  of  the  government.  We  have  done  this  under  the  express 
sanction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  before  whom  I  laid  the  mat- 
ter and  obtained  his  consent. 

Question.  Are  cases  ol  seizures  ever  settled  privately  by  the  revenue 
officers,  to  your  knowledge  ? 
Part  iii  1 


2 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  There  have  been  a  few  cases  where  the  revenue  officers  have 
settled  with  parties  with  the  consent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Question.  What  is  the  mode  of  operation  in  such  cases? 

Answer.  The  same  as  in  all  other  cases,  except  that  upon  the  earnest 
and  written  request  of  the  parties  making  the  settlement  the  circum- 
stances surrounding  the  case  are  not  unnecessarily  exposed,  though 
the  money,  as  in  other  cases,  is  paid  in  to  the  auditor.  The  auditor 
has  all  the  papers  and  all  the  information  upon  that  subject,  and  can 
give  the  amounts  and  the  facts  in  writing.  He  is  the  only  officer  who 
has  ever  received  any  money,  in  the  first  instance,  since  I  have  been 
naval  officer  of  this  port. 

Question.  Are  these  settlements  in  every  instance  made  with  the 
express  assent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  have  you  a  discre- 
tion in  the  matter? 

Answer.  Where  the  amount  is  any  considerable  sum,  the  settlement 
is  made  with  the  consent  of  the  Secretary.  Where  the  amount  is  small, 
there  is  a  discretion  resting  with  the  revenue  officers  here. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  received  a  written  statement  of  any  em- 
ploye of  the  custom-house  in  relation  to  smuggled  goods  ? 

Answer.  I  may  have  received  such  statements  ;  if  so,  the  matter 
was  investigated  at  the  time  ;  and  if  any  proceedings  were  taken,  it 
is  now  a  matter  of  record,  j 

Question.  Have  you  ever  made  any  promise  to  any  employes  that 
if  you  succeeded  in  certain  seizures  they  should  make  a  handsome 
thing  out  of  it? 

Answer.  As  I  before  stated,  I  have  told  parties  who  did  not  wish  to 
appear  as  informers  that  if  they  would  furnish  information  which 
would  lead  to  conviction,  the  revenue  officers  would  make  a  division 
of  the  proceeds  which  they  received  ;  which,  as  I  stated  before,  was 
an  equal  division — twenty-five  per  cent,  to  each.  And  I  would  say, 
further,  that  in  every  instance  where  information  has  been  received 
which  led  to  a  conviction,  the  party  has  received  his  full  share. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  in  relation  to  the  labor  contract 
for  storing,  hauling,  and  delivery  of  goods  in  this  city  ? 

Answer.  1  know  that  that  labor  is  done  by  contract,  but  I  know 
nothing  of  the  details  of  the  matter. 


New  York,  September  9,  1862. 

Eufus  F.  Andrews  sworn: 

Question.  State  your  official  position? 
Answer.  I  am  surveyor  of  the  port  of  New  York. 
Question.  How  long  have  you  held  that  office? 
Answer.  Since  the  1st  of  August,  1861. 

Question.  What  amount  of  money  have  you  received  by  virtue  of 
your  office  during  that  time  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell,  without  reference  to  the  account  books.  The 
salary  is  fixed  by  law.  The  auditor  of  the  custom-house  has  an  ac- 
count of  every  cent  I  have  received.    The  salary  depends  to  some  ex- 


TESTIMONY. 


3 


tent  upon  the  fees.  It  cannot  be  over  $4,900,  and  it  has  not  amounted 
to  that  this  year. 

Question.  What  portion  of  the  moneys  you  have  received  have  been, 
in  your  judgment,  derived  from  seizures  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  the  receipts  from  seizures,  during  the  last 
year,  have  been  about  twice  the  amount  of  the  salary.  As  I  have 
kept  no  books  myself,  I  cannot  tell  the  exact  amount.  The  auditor's 
account  will  show  the  whole. 

Question.  Have  you,  by  virtue  of  your  office,  received  any  moneys 
except  those  shown  by  the  auditor's  books  ? 

Answer.  Not  one  cent. 

Question.  Did  you  make  any  seizures  in  September  or  October, 
1861? 

Answer.  I  presume  I  did.  About  that  time  there  was  some  jewelry 
seized  which  was  taken  from  the  persons  of  passengers  who  attempted 
to  smuggle  it  into  port.  All  that  jewelry,  and  all  jewelry  seized  since 
I  have  been  in  office,  has  been  accounted  for,  item  by  item.  A  mem- 
orandum of  it  taken  at  the  time  showed  of  what  it  consisted,  and 
it  was  brought  to  the  office,  sealed  up,  placed  in  the  possession  of  the 
collector,  and  has  either  been  sold  or  disposed  of  by  due  proces  of  law, 
or  settlement  made  by  the  collector,  in  accordance  with  the  revenue 
laws,  and  not  a  single  item  of  that  jewelry  has  been  detained  or  re- 
ceived by  me,  or  presented  to  anybody. 

Question.  State  the  names  of  the  deputies  who  have  generally  been 
employed  in  making  seizures. 

Answer.  My  deputy  is  Thomas  J.  Brown,  and  the  special  officers 
who  are  inspectors  are  Graham,  Isaacs,  and  Archer.  These  deputies 
are  specially  detailed  to  detect  frauds  upon  the  revenue  when  ships 
and  steamers  arrive;  they  are  also  the  officers  selected  when  we  ob- 
tain warrants  to  enter  persons'  stores  for  the  purpose  of  searching  for 
goods  which  have  been  smuggled  in.  In  all  cases  where  they  have 
visited  stores  they  have  done  so  under  the  warrant  of  the  police  magis- 
trate, and  have  acted  under  my  supervision;  and  any  statement  that 
settlements  have  been  made  by  them  is  false.  It  is  impossible,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  that  they  could  make  such  a  settlement  without  its 
being  known  to  me,  and  I  know  that  nothing  of  the  kind  has  been 
done.  In  every  case  where  we  have  made  seizures  of  merchants,  the 
matter  has  been  reported  to  the  collector,  and  everything  placed  in 
his  hands. 

Question.  Are  you,  or  are  your  deputies,  in  the  habit  of  seizing 
goods  where  there  is  a  mere  technical  violation  of  law  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  never.  Where  there  is  a  violation  of  the  revenue 
law  by  a  person  attempting  to  smuggle  in  goods,  we  seize  the  goods. 
That  is  always  done  upon  the  arrival  of  steamers  or  vessels.  We  do 
not  go  into  merchants'  stores  without  a  warrant. 

Question.  Has  it  ever  been  the  practice  to  seize  for  a  technical  vio- 
lation of  law,  and  then  follow  it  up  by  a  settlement  for  a  small  amount, 
without  going  through  the  forms  which  the  law  requires? 

Answer.  There  have  been  no  seizures  for  a  technical  violation  of  law 
since  1  have  been  in  office,  and  there  has  been  no  settlement  except  in 
cases  where  a  settlement  was  authorized  by  the  act  of  Congress  upon 


4 


TESTIMONY. 


that  subject.  There  are  cases  where  invoices  have  been  made  up,  and 
the  property  appraised  by  the  appraiser  under  due  form  of  law,  and 
then  the  amount  paid  into  the  hands  of  the  collector  by  the  parties. 

Question.  Be  good  enough  to  state  the  course  pursued  in  relation 
to  the  baggage  of  passengers  coming  from  abroad. 

Answer.  We  are  required  to  make  a  careful  examination  of  the 
baggage  of  every  person  arriving  here.  That  is  the  business  of  myself 
and  of  the  inspectors  under  me. 

Question.  In  what  way  is  that  examination  made? 

Answer.  By  causing  all  the  trunks  to  be  opened  and  all  the  con- 
tents examined.  Where  we  have  cause  to  suspect,  a  false  bottom  in  a 
trunk,  we  cause  a  hole  to  be  bored  through  to  see  whether  it  is  so  or 
not.  The  examination  is  a  thorough  one.  In  all  cases  baggage  is 
examined,  except  where  special  instructions  are  given  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  to  pass  baggage  without  examination,  as  in  the  case 
of  foreign  ministers  and  consuls. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  instances  where  the  conduct  of  officers 
examining  has  been  influenced  by  the  payment  of  sums  of  money  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  and  I  do  not  believe  any  such  instance  has  occur- 
red. I  am  generally  present  on  the  examination  of  baggage  to  see 
that  my  officers  do  their  duty  *properly. 

Question.  Is  there  any  other  source  from  which  you  receive  money 
by  virtue  of  your  office,  except  those  already  mentioned — salary  and 
your  share  of  the  seizure-money  ? 

Answer.  None  whatever.  I  receive  not  a  cent  from  any  other  source. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  a  practice  existing  among  your  officers, 
when  importers  get  into  difficulties  by  a  violation  of  the  revenue 
laws,  of  sending  them  to  Craig  &  Webster  as  lawyers? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  In  some  instances  I  have  known  such  men  to 
ask  who  were  good  revenue  lawyers,  and  I  have  heard  several  names 
mentioned,  among  which  were  Craig  &  Webster,  and  Cutting  & 
Dunning,  all  of  whom  have  had  considerable  practice  in  that  line. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  a  seizure  of  goods  belong- 
ing to  Herman  Batjer? 

Auswer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  in  relation  to  the  ownership  and 
rents  of  the  bonded  warehouses,  and  anything  in  relation  to  the  labor 
contract  ? 

Answer.  I  know  nothing  at  all  about  them. 

The  witness  being  subsequently  recalled,  said: 

I  was  mistaken  in  stating  that  the  auditor's  account  would  show 
my  salary.  That  account  he  does  not  keep.  My  salary  for  the  year 
ending  the  first  of  August  was  $4,549  96,  of  which  $4,500  is  allowed 
as  salary  absolutely,  $45  being  deducted  for  something,  I  know  not 
what. 

Question.  The  fees  are  limited  so  that  you  cannot  have  over  $4,500 
a  year  ? 

Answer.  It  does  not  amount  to  that  much  this  year. 


TESTIMONY. 


5 


New  York,  September  9,  1862. 

Hamilton  Bruce  sworn  : 

Question.  Please  state  your  official  position. 

Answer.  I  am  deputy  collector  and  ex  officio  storekeeper  of  the 
port,  in  charge  of  the  third  division. 

Question.  Please  state  what  you  know  in  relation  to  the  ownership 
and  rents  of  the  bonded  warehouses  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Answer.  I  can  make  the  statement  more  accurately  by  going  over 
to  the  office  and  getting  a  list  of  our  stores.  There  are  some  112  or 
115  of  them. 

Question.  State,  as  nearly  as  you  can,  everything  in  relation  to  the 
system. 

Answer.  There  are  five  classes  of  stores.  Stores  of  class  one  are  no 
longer  used  at  this  port.  Class  two  are  used  for  depositing  the  goods 
of  the  importer  only.  Class  three  are  used  for  the  storage  of  general 
importations.  Class  four  are  cellars  used  for  the  storage  of  liquors 
only.  Class  five  are  sheds  used  for  bulky  articles,  such  as  coal,  mar- 
ble, and  the  like.  I  think  there  are  some  112  or  115  of  them  in  all. 
Class  one  would  be  rented  by  the  government,  but  there  are  no  such 
stores  in  use  here  now.  The  government  still  have  the  unexpired 
lease  of  a  store,  class  one,  at  Atlantic  dock,  but  it  is  now  used  as  class 
three.    The  government  does  not  send  any  more  store  goods  here. 

Question.  By  whom  are  these  stores  generally  owned,  and  how  are 
they  rented  ? 

Answer.  Class  two  are  generally  owned  by  large  importers,  such 
as  large  sugar-houses,  who  have  these  stores  for  the  reception  of 
their  own  property,  and  they  can  more  than  fill  them.  The  cellars 
are  used  principally  by  liquor  dealers  for  their  own  importations.  Any 
person  of  respectable  reputation,  who  feels  disposed  to  take  a  store  and 
run  the  risk  of  getting  such  storage  as  he  can,  may  keep  a  store  of  class 
No.  3. 

Question.  By  whom  is  the  rate  of  storage  fixed? 

Answer.  By  the  Chamber  of  Commerce.  They  have  decided  what 
rates  shall  be  charged  upon  all  goods  which  go  under  general  orders, 
and  that  is  paid  by  the  parties  who  use  the  stores  by  the  authority  and 
consent  of  the  custom-house.  That  is  applicable  only  to  general  or- 
ders, because  a  party  entering  goods  can  designate  any  store  he  pleases 
to  have  the  goods  go  to,  and  he  can  make  any  bargain  he  pleases.  The 
rates  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  are  rates  which  apply  only  in  cases 
of  dispute. 

Question.  Who  are  the  principal  owners  of  the  warehouses  now 
used  as  bonded  warehouses  ? 

Answer.  There  is  not  more  than  one  individual  who  has  two  stores. 

Question.  How  many  bonded  warehouses  of  class  one  has  the  gov- 
ernment now  ? 

Answer.  None. 

Question.  How  many  of  class  two  ? 

Answer.  Five ;  and  they  are  for  the  owners'  own  goods. 

Question.  How  many  of  class  three? 

Answer.  Fifty-one. 


6 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  How  many  of  class  four? 
Answer.  Forty-four. 
Question.  How  many  of  class  five? 
Answer.  Two. 

Question.  By  whom  are  all  these  stores  owned? 
Answer.  The  owners  are  numerous.    Their  names  are  given  upon 
a  list  I  have. 

Question.  Who  rents  these  honded  warehouses  ;  the  government  or 
the  proprietors  of  the  stores? 

Answer.  The  proprietors  of  the  stores,  except  that  class  one  would 
be  rented  by  the  government. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  amount  paid  by  them 
for  rent  ? 

Answer.  Of  my  own  knowledge,  I  do  not  know  ;  but  I  understand 
they  rent  for  five,  six,  and  even  eight  thousand  dollars  a  year. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  profits  arising  to  the 
proprietors  from  having  these  bonded  warehouses  ? 

Answer.  I  know  nothing  of  the  facts.  I  suppose,  from  the  fact 
that  many  persons  have  continued  in  the  business  many  years,  that 
the  business  is  selfLsustaining. 

Question.  The  amount  of  money  paid  for  storage  is  regulated  by 
the  Chamber  of  Commerce? 

Answer.  Yes  ;  in  case  of  dispute.  You  can  make  a  private  arrange- 
ment if  you  please,  and  all  ycu  get  storage  for  under  that  is  so  much 
saved. 

Question.  Please  state  what  you  know  in  relation  to  the  general- 
order  system. 

Answer.  The  general-order  goods,  so  called,  are  goods  which  arrive 
in  vessels  and  are  unclaimed  or  unentered  by  the  consignee.  By  law 
the  vessel  has  to  discharge  within  a  given  time.  If  goods  are  not  out 
of  the  vessel  by  that  time  and  bonded,  or  the  duty  paid  upon  them,  the 
collector  and  surveyor  have  an  order  sent  for  the  discharge  of  that 
vessel,  and  those  goods,  denominated  general-order  goods,  go  into  the 
nearest  store  in  the  district  in  which  the  vessel  lies. 

Question.  Is  it  the  rule  that  they  shall  be  taken  to  the  nearest 
store  ? 

Answer.  It  is,  in  every  instance. 
Question.  Can  there  be  any  favoritism  shown? 
Answer.  No,  sir  ;  for,  by  direction  of  the  collector,  the  goods  go  in 
every  instance  into  the  nearest  store  of  the  district. 
Question.  Is  that  ever  changed ? 

Answer.  Only  when  one  store  is  full ;  and  then  they  go  into  the 
next  general-order  store.  That  has  occurred  twice,  and  I  have  been 
so  particular  as  to  send  to  the  proprietors  of  the  stores  and  tell  them 
they  should  not  charge  an  additional  cartage. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  of  the  terms,  consideration,  and  profit 
of  the  labor  contract  for  the  storing  hauling,  and  delivery  of  goods 
in  the  city  of  New  York  ? 

Answer.  I  know  nothing  about  it.  That  is  a  matter  of  private  con- 
tract with  the  parties,  and  with  it  the  custom-house  has  nothing  to 


TESTIMONY. 


7 


do,  directly  or  indirectly.  The  contract  is  given  to  individuals,  and 
they  have  all  the  business  to  attend  to. 

Question.  Who  are  the  contractors  now  ? 

Answer.  I  only  know  who  they  are  by  hearsay. 

Question.  Are  there  any  limits  and  restrictions  placed  upon  them 
by  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  collector  has  absolute  control  over  the  whole 
matter.    That  is  only  an  impression  of  mine. 

Question.  Then  the  government  assumes  the  right  of  controlling 
this  cartage,  and  it  gives  the  privilege  of  doing  this  cartage  to  cer- 
tain persons  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Does  he  pay  anything? 

Answer.  He  obligates  himself  to  perform  the  duty,  and  he  may 
make  something  out  of  it,  and  he  may  lose  something. 


New  York,  September  9,  1862. 

DeWitt  C.  Graham  sworn: 
Question.  State  your  official  position. 

Answer.  I  am  inspector  in  the  custom-house,  and  am  attached  to 
the  office  of  the  surveyor  as  one  of  his  special  aids. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  position  ? 

Answer.  Nearly  five  years.  I  have  been  in  the  custom-house  four- 
teen or  fifteen  years. 

Question.  What  is  your  particular  duty? 

Answer.  The  duty  assigned  me  is  to  board  all  steamers  that  arrive; 
examine  the  baggage  of  passengers,  and  obtain  what  information  I 
can  in  relation  to  smugglers  arriving  here,  both  before  and  after  the 
arrival  of  vessels  ;  to  accompany  the  collector,  naval  officer,  and  sur- 
veyor upon  the  examination  of  stores  and  the  books  therein,  for  the 
purpose  of  detecting  frauds  against  the  government ;  and,  in  fact,  to 
make  all  seizures  under  the  direction  of  the  surveyor. 

Question.  What  is  your  mode  of  proceeding? 

Answer.  Immediately  upon  boarding  a  vessel,  if  we  have  any  in- 
formation of  the  expected  arrival  of  suspected  persons,  we  obtain  a  list 
of  the  passengers  to  see  whether  it  contains  the  names  of  those  sus- 
pected persons.  If  it  does,  we  seek  for  other  information,  to  see 
whether  any  of  their  acts  are  suspicious.  We  then  receive  from  them 
a  written  declaration  of  their  luggage,  and  proceed  to  an  examina- 
tion of  their  effects  ;  and  where  we  have  reason  to  suspect  them,  we 
examine  their  persons. 

Question.  How  many  persons  are  assigned  to  this  special  duty? 

Answer.  Deputy  Surveyors  Brown,  Archer,  Isaacs,  and  myself. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  instances  where  for  any  considera- 
tion, pecuniary  or  otherwise,  baggage  has  been  permitted  to  pass 
without  inspection  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  instances  where  any  parties  con- 


8 


TESTIMONY. 


nected  with  the  custom-house  have  permitted  baggage  to  go  through 
without  a  thorough  examination  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  We  are  very  particular  in  relation  to  that. 
Under  the  previous  administration  Hart  generally  superintended  the 
examination  himself.  Mr.  Andrews  does  as  nearly  so  as  he  can.  I 
have  known  instances  where  ex-ministers,  under  a  declaration  that 
they  had  nothing  dutiable  with  them,  were  allowed  to  pass,  out  of 
courtesy  to  them.  In  cases  of  that  kind  we  consult  the  surveyor. 
We  know  we  are  watched,  that  others  are  looking  on,  and  it 
makes  us  careful  not  to  assume  any  responsibility  ourselves. 

Question.  What  course  do  you  ordinarily  pursue  in  making  seizures? 

Answer.  When  we  discover  smuggled  goods,  we  immediately  make 
an  inventory  of  them,  and  then  they  are  sealed  up  and  sent  to  the 
public  store,  where  they  remain  until  an  appraisement  is  ordered. 
The  goods  pass  out  of  our  hands  immediately  Where  the  parties  de- 
sire it,  we  give  them  a  list  of  what  we  take. 

Question.  Are  any  of  these  articles  ever  given  up  upon  the  condi- 
tion of  some  pecuniary  consideration  to  be  paid  ? 

Answer.  I  have  never  known  such  an  instance.  We  are  always 
too  glad  to  make  a  seizure  in  order  to  get  a  little  eclat  for  ourselves. 
I  speak  of  the  other  gentlemen,  as  well  as  myself. 

Question.  After  you  have  made  the  seizure  and  delivered  the  goods 
at  the  public  store,  your  duty  in  regard  to  them  ends? 

Answer.  Yes,  after  making  our  report  to  the  collector,  naval  officer, 
and  surveyor,  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  seizure  was  made. 
That  report  is  made  in  writing. 


New  York,  September  9,  1862. 

Thomas  J.  Brown  sworn  : 

Question.  State  your  residence  and  official  position. 
Answer.  I  reside  in  Harlem,  and  am  deputy  surveyor. 
Question.  How  long  have  you  been  such  deputy? 
Answer.  I  was  made  deputy  surveyor  about  one  month  after  Mr. 
Andrews  came  into  office. 

Question.  What  are  your  particular  duties? 

Answer.  To  examine  the  baggage  of  passengers  arriving  from 
foreign  ports,  and  especially  that  of  those  of  whom  I  have  any  suspi- 
cion. 

Question.  What  is  your  duty  in  making  such  examinations? 

Answer.  In  case  of  suspicion,  we  furnish  the  party  with  the  form  of 
a  declaration  on  which  he  puts  down,  so  many  trunks,  so  many  pack- 
ages, &c.  This  is  signed  and  delivered  to  the  inspector  or  officer  who 
examines  the  baggage.  If  goods  are  found  which  are  not  upon  the 
list,  of  course  they  are  liable  to  confiscation. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  permitted  any  baggage  to  pass  without 
examination  for  a  consideration,  either  pecuniary  or  otherwise? 

Answer.  Never,  and  all  statements  to  that  effect  are  false. 


TESTIMONY. 


9 


Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  of  the  men  being  allowed  to  pass 
baggage  without  examination  for  a  pecuniary  consideration? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  On  the  contrary,  whenever  we  have  had  a  sus- 
picion that  an  officer  has  taken  any  money  on  such  an  understanding, 
we  go  to  the  surveyor  and  inform  him  of  that  fact? 

Question.  Have  you  ever  known  an  instance  of  men  doing  so?  If 
so,  what  has  been  the  result  of  the  disclosure  ? 

Answer.  I  never  knew  of  but  one  instance,  and  that  was  under 
Hart.    He  dismissed  the  man  immediately. 

If  it  has  been  charged  by  one  Edward  M.  Marsh  that  such  things 
have  been  allowed,  I  have  to  say  that  all  I  know  of  him  is  what  I  have 
heard.  1  have  seen  the  man  in  the  street  and  passed  the  time  of  day 
with  him,  but  never  conversed  with  him.  He  was  once  considered  of 
very  great  importance  to  the  department  in  the  way  of  giving  infor- 
mation against  different  houses,  and  against  merchants  passing  be- 
tween this  country  and  Europe.  I  have  heard  him  spoken  of  as  a 
man  of  no  character  whatever. 


New  York,  September  9,  1862. 

Alexander  Isaacs  sworn : 

Question.  Please  state  your  official  position. 

Answer.  I  am  inspector  of  customs  in  this  city,  but  am  specially 
detached  by  the  surveyor. 

Question.  For  what  purpose? 

Answer.  I  was  appointed  in  1853  to  make  examinations  into  the 
matter  of  passengers  and  storekeepers. 

Question.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  seizing  goods? 
Answer.  I  am. 

Question.  It  is  a  part  of  your  duty  to  examine  the  baggage  of  pas- 
sengers ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  specially  so. 

Question.  It  is  charged  that  you,  with  other  inspectors  performing 
the  same  duties,  assume  full  authority  to  examine  baggage  ;  that  you 
pass  it  with  or  without  examination  as  you  choose  ;  that  in  many  cases 
you  receive  money  for  passing  baggage,  five  and  ten  dollars  at  a  time, 
and  that  you  do  this  as  a  regular  business.  What  do  you  say  to 
these  charges  ? 

Answer.  I  have  never  in  my  life  received  a  shilling  from  any  indi- 
vidual, except  where  it  has  been  delivered  over  to  the  collector,  sur- 
veyor, or  naval  officer,  as  money  presented  to  me  as  a  bribe.  For 
instance,  here  is  money  (showing  a  roll  of  bills)  which  was  offered  to 
me  this  morning  as  a  bribe.  I  received  it,  and  then  seized  the  man's 
goods  and  sent  them  to  the  public  store.  We  often  take  such  money 
when  offered  to  us  as  a  bribe,  but  we  always  deliver  it  to  the  custom- 
house officers. 


10 


TESTIMONY. 


New  York,  September  9,  1862. 

James  B.  Archer  sworn  : 

Question.  State  your  official  position,  and  how  long  you  have  been 
in  the  custom-house. 

Answer.  I  have  been  an  inspector  of  customs  since  1853. 
Question.  What  is  your  special  duty  ? 

Answer.  Boarding  steamers  and  attending  to  office  business. 

Question.  You  have  heard  the  questions  put  to  Mr.  Isaacs  during 
his  examination,  and  the  answers  thereto.  So  far  as  his  answers  were 
responsive  to  the  interrogatories,  are  they  true  so  far  as  regards  your- 
self? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  known  of  any  practice  existing  whereby  bag- 
gage has  been  permitted  to  pass  without  examination  for  any  consid- 
eration whether  of  friendship  or  money  ? 

Answer.  No  more  than  the  instances  stated  by  Brown. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  instances? 

Auswer.  None  whatever.  Our  orders  from  the  collector  and  sur- 
veyor upon  that  subject  are  very  strict.  It  is,  that  we  shall  make  a 
strict  examination  of  baggage.  We  generally  go  around  among  the 
inspectors  and  overlook  everything  that  is  being  done. 
.  Question.  Your  duty  is  rather  to  oversee  than  to  make  a  personal 
examination  yourself? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


New  York,  September  10,  1862. 

Samuel  G-.  Ogden  sworn  : 

Question.  What  is  your  official  position  ? 
Answer.  I  am  auditor  of  the  custom-house. 

Question.  From  the  nature  of  your  position  there,  does  all  the 
money  coming  into  the  hands  of  the  collector,  surveyor  and  naval 
officer  of  the  port,  by  virtue  of  their  offices,  come  through  your 
hands  ? 

Answer.  All  that  accrues  from  seizures,  fines,  penalties  and  for- 
feitures. 

Question.  State  the  amount  received  by  each  of  those  officers  from 
those  sources  from  June,  1861,  to  July,  1862. 

Answer.  The  amount  received  by  the  collector  from  April,  1861, 
up  to  and  including  July,  1862,  was  $12,617  63.  The  amounts  re- 
ceived by  the  surveyor  and  naval  officer,  respectively,  will  only  vary 
from  that  according  to  the  time  they  respectively  took  office. 

Question.  When  were  they  appointed  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  naval  officer  was  appointed  about  the  first  of 
June.  The  appointment  of  the  surveyor  was  later.  I  present  a 
monthly  statement  of  the  amount  received  by  the  collector. 

The  statement  was  as  follows : 


TESTIMONY. 


11 


1861.  — June   $65  20 

July   75  72 

August   55  57 

September   721  10 

October   4,090  88 

November     524  18 

December   721  66 

1862.  — January,   1,720  05 

February   1,638  16 

March   1,638  16 

April...,   293  91 

May   213  11 

June    1,510  10 

July  ,  ,   987  99 


12,617  63 


Out  of  that  sum  it  is  understood  that  a  considerable  amount  is  paid 
for  information. 

Question.  Have  all  the  seizures  made  during  that  period  been  ac- 
counted for  in  that  statement  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  Some  cases  are  still  pending,  and  are  unde- 
termined. The  decision  of  the  court  may  be  in  favor  of  the  claimants, 
in  which  case  the  officers  got  nothing.  For  that  reason  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  form  any  estimate  of  what  may  accrue  from  those  cases. 


New  York,  September  10,  1862. 

Hiram  Barney  sworn : 

Question.  Please  state  your  official  position. 

Answer.  I  am  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  and  have  been 
since  April  8,  1861. 

Question.  I  hand  you  a  resolution  passed  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, which  you  will  please  read,  and  then  please  state  fully  in 
relation  to  the  several  branches  thereof. 

The  resolution  above  referred  to  was  as  follows : 

"Resolved,  That  the  committee  on  government  contracts  be  directed 
to  inquire  into  the  amount  of  moneys  received  by  the  federal  officers 
in  the  city  of  New  York  by  virtue  of  their  offices  ;  also  as  to  the  owner- 
ship and  rents  of  the  bonded  warehouses  ;  also  the  terms,  considera- 
tions, and  profits  of  the  labor  contracts  for  the  storing,  hauling,  and 
delivery,  &c,  of  foreign  goods  in  the  city  of  New  York,  when  made, 
by  whom,  and  who  are  now  interested  in  the  same." 

Answer.  On  a  former  examination  I  stated  fully,  in  answer  to  the 
first  part  of  the  resolution,  touching  the  amount  of  moneys  received. 
The  bonded  warehouses  are  owned  by  individuals  who  take  goods  on 
storage,  giving  bonds  for  the  safety,  custody,  and  delivery  of  the 


12 


TESTIMONY. 


goods  to  the  owners.  The  rates  of  storage  are  uniform  and  settled. 
The  parties  who  hond  their  warehouses  for  the  storage  of  imported 
goods  also  pay  the  salary  of  the  government  storekeeper,  and  of  any 
other  officer  that  may  he  needed  to  assist  that  storekeeper.  Practi- 
cally, therefore,  the  government  pays  nothing.  They  adopt  this  regu- 
lation to  secure  the  safety  of  the  goods  while  they  are  being  ware- 
housed, and  before  they  are  finally  entered  for  consumption  or  with- 
drawn for  exportation.  It  is  no  expense  to  the  government.  The 
charge  is  a  matter  between  the  keeper  of  the  public  store  and  the 
owners  of  the  goods  ;  but  in  case  of  a  dispute  in  reference  to  a  charge, 
the  rates  which  have  been  determined  by  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
apply. 

Question.  What  rules  govern  the  contracts  which  are  made  by  indi- 
viduals with  the  government  for  these  bonded  warehouses  ? 

Answer.  There  is  no  contract.  The  way  is  simply  this :  a  man 
comes  to  me  and  wants  his  store  made  a  bonded  warehouse.  Upon 
filing  a  bond  and  giving  good  security  his  store  is  made  a  bonded 
warehouse,  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  he  gets  goods  stored  there  if  he 
can.  The  principle  which  governs  me  in  reference  to  general  orders 
is  this,  that  the  accommodations  in  the  building  shall  be  sufficient  for 
the  district  to  be  served,  and  that  the  store  itself  shall  be  convenient 
to  the  place  where  most  of  the  general-order  goods  are  landed.  There 
may  be  goods  which  go  under  general  orders  in  any  vessel,  because 
that  depends  frequently  upon  whether  they  get  them  out  in  time. 
All  goods  that  remain  on  board  over  three  days  go,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  to  the  general-order  stores.  The  advantage  of  these  stores  is, 
that  such  goods  are  generally  wanted  in  a  short  time. 

Question.  Is  it  not  considered  a  matter  of  great  interest  to  parties 
to  have  their  stores  made  general-order  stores? 

Answer.  That  depends  entirely  upon  the  store  and  its  location. 
There  is  this  about  it :  it  is  presumed  that  general-order  stores  have 
better  accommodations  than  other  stores,  because  we  require  superior 
accommodations  for  general  orders. 

Question.  Is  it  not  worth  something  to  a  man  to  have  his  store 
made  a  general-order  store  ? 

Answer.  Sometimes  it  is,  and  sometimes  it  is  not.  I  remember 
there  was  once  considerable  anxiety  about  some  stores  down  in  Broad 
or  Liberty  street,  and  I  had  occasion  to  inquire  into  the  amount  of 
storage  which  had  been  received  at  those  general-order  stores  for  six 
months,  and  the  whole  of  it  amounted  to  $168. 

Question.  State  fully  and  particularly  what  you  know  in  relation  to 
the  labor  contract. 

Answer.  The  labor  contract  was  made  in  August,  1859,  by  Mr. 
Schell,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  with 
Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.,  to  perform  certain  labor  about  the  appraisers' 
stores  in  the  handling  of  goods.  The  labor  contract,  which  was  in 
existence  for  three  years  prior  to  September  5,  1862,  expired  with 
that  day.  I  have  now  made  arrangements  to  perform  that  labor  by 
persons  hired,  or  to  be  hired  by  the  day,  and  a  few  clerks,  upon  an 
estimate  of  the  expenditure  for  that  purpose,  by  which  the  govern- 
ment will  save,  it  our  expectations  are  realized,  some  $37,000  per 


TESTIMONY. 


13 


annum  upon  the  prices  paid  under  the  contract  which  has  just 
expired. 

There  is  not  and  never  has  "been  any  contract,  so  far  as  I  know,  for 
the  storing  of  goods.  The  contract  was  for  hauling  the  goods  to  the 
appraisers'  stores,  and  handling  them  there,  and  delivering  them  to 
the  owners.  The  goods  are  stored  in  bonded  warehouses,  as  I  have 
already  described,  or  in  the  general-order  stores,  which  are  also 
bonded  warehouses,  but  which  receive  such  goods  from  vessels  as  are 
not  discharged  within  the  time  prescribed  by  law,  and  which  are 
designated  "  unclaimed  goods/'  These  unclaimed  goods  may  and 
sometimes  do  remain  in  store  for  a  long  period  of  time,  but  they 
generally  remain  for  only  a  short  period,  and  the  profit  upon  tbem 
arises  from  that  circumstance.  It  is  a  business  which  must  be  judi- 
ciously and  carefully  managed,  in  order  to  make  money  by  the  men 
who  have  the  bonded  stores. 

Question.  Who  were  interested  in  that  labor  contract  so  far  as  you 
know  ? 

Answer.  Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  are  the  only  parties  I  ever  recog- 
nized as  bound  to  perform  that  work  and  entitled  to  the  pay,  except- 
ing that  they  gave  a  power  of  attorney  to  Wyman  and  Stevens  to 
receive  the  money,  and  from  that  I  inferred  that  they,  in  some  way 
or  another,  were  either  wholly  or  partially  interested  in  that  contract. 
Whether  any  other  parties  were  associated  with  them  I  have  never 
been  informed,  and  do  not  know. 

Question.  Who  are  Wyman  and  Stevens? 

Answer.  Wyman  is  a  merchant  here;  Stevens,  I  believe,  was  a 
lawyer  in  Pennsylvania. 

Question.  By  what  means  did  those  parties,  so  far  as  you  know  or 
believe,  become  interested  in  that  contract  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  the  way  the  thing  was  accomplished. 

Question.  Did  they  manage  the  whole  business  as  the  attorneys  of 
Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  never  meant  to  recognize  that  contract 
with  Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  any  further  than  it  had  been  recognized 
by  the  government,  and  I  held  them  to  the  performance  of  the  con- 
tract, and  nobody  else.  The  work  has  always  been  performed  under 
the  superintendence  of  Bixby. 


New  York,  December  18,  1862. 

Samuel  G.  Ogden  sworn  : 

Question.  Your  attention  having  been  directed  to  this  subject  in 
your  testimony  heretofore,  in  connexion  with  the  auditorship  of  the 
custom-house  at  this  port,  ph  ase  state  definitely  the  compensation 
received  from  the  government  by  the  three  officers,  the  collector,  the 
naval  officer,  and  the  surveyor  of  the  port  of  New  York,  and  in  what 
manner  it  is  paid  ? 

Answer.  The  officers  named  derive  their  compensation  from  fees, 
subject  to  a  limitation  fixed  by  law;  $6,000  in  the  case  of  the  collector, 


14 


TESTIMONY. 


$5,000  in  the  case  of  the  naval  officer,  and  $4,500  in  the  case  of  the 
surveyor.  The  collector  and  surveyor  receive,  in  addition,  $400  per 
annum  for  services  performed  in  other  capacities,  provided  the  fees 
for  those  services  amount  to  so  much.  They  always  have  amounted 
to  that  sum  in  the  case  of  the  collector,  but  perhaps  not  always  in 
the  case  of  the  surveyor.  In  addition,  they  receive  their  proportion 
of  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures,  as  provided  by  the  91st  section  of 
the  collection  act  of  1799.  That  act  awards  to  those  officers  each 
one-third  of  the  moiety  of  the  net  proceeds  of  such  forfeitures,  except 
in  cases  where  there  are  informers.  The  informer  receives  one-half 
of  the  one  moiety  which  would  accrue  to  the  officers. 

Question.  Where  you  use  the  term  "informer,"  do  you  embrace 
every  person  who  furnishes  information  upon  which  a  violation  of 
the  revenue  law  is  established,  or  do  you  only  mean  such  persons  as 
are  openly  known  in  the  character  of  informer  in  the  particular 
instance? 

Answer.  The  only  persons  excepted  by  law  are  the  collector,  naval 
officer,  and  surveyor.  Any  other  party,  therefore,  upon  giving 
information,  is  entitled  to  a  share. 

Question.  I  want  to  know  what  meaning  is  attached  to  the  word 
"informer"  under  the  old  act  of  1799  ? 

Answer.  Any  person  giving  information. 

Question.  Whether  his  name  appears  in  the  proceedings  by  which 
the  condemnation  is  effected  or  not  ? 
Answer.  Certainly. 

Question.  And  whether  he  is  known  as  having  furnished  the 
information  or  not? 

Answer.  He  must  have  furnished  the  information  to  the  revenue 
officer.  For  instance,  if  I  discover  a  fraud,  and  give  notice  thereof 
to  the  collector,  I  am  entitled  to  claim  my  share  as  an  informer. 

Question.  Without  having  filed  any  information  under  oath  or 
otherwise  ? 

Answer.  An  oath  is  not  necessary. 

Question.  Nor  writing  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not  absolutely  necessary  that  the  information  should 
be  in  writing. 

Question.  The  practice  is  to  give  the  informer  one-half  of  the  moiety 
going  to  the  officers,  whether  the  information  is  furnished  secretly  or 
openly? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  For  what  length  of  time  have  you  been  acting  in  the 
capacity  of  auditor  ? 

Answer.  Since  January,  1842. 

Question.  What  has  been  the  practice,  in  your  office,  in  reference 
to  making  memoranda,  or  furnishing  data  from  which  memoranda 
may  be  made,  of  amounts  which  may  have  been  received  by  officers 
connected  with  the  custom-house  in  the  adjustment  of  claims  against 
property  or  parties  for  alleged  violation  of  the  revenue  laws,  and 
which  have  not  been  the  subject  of  any  public  proceeding  ? 

Answer.  The  books  kept  in  my  office  show  the  amounts  paid  in  all 
such  cases. 


TESTIMONY. 


15 


Question.  State  the  practice. 

Answer.  The  money  is  paid  to  me,  and  I  distribute  it  according  to 
law. 

Question.  By  whom  is  it  paid  to  you  in  cases  where  there  has  been 
an  adjustment  without  any  legal  proceeding? 

Answer.  By  the  claimant,  or  the  party  who  incurs  the  forfeiture. 

Question.  Does  it  always  come  directly  to  your  hands  from  the  per- 
son interested,  or  does  it  come  through  the  intervention  of  some  other 
custom-house  officer?  And  how  are  you  informed  of  the  adjustment 
of  the  liabilities  in  cases  where  forfeitures  have  been  inucrred  and 
adjusted  without  any  legal  proceeding? 

Answer.  By  the  officer  in  charge  of  that  bureau,  of  which  deputy 
collector  Henry  B.  Stanton  is  the  head.  The  adjustment  is  made  in 
that  bureau,  but  the  money  is  generally  brought  by  the  claimant, 
though,  in  some  instances,  it  may  have  been  brought  by  persons  in 
that  office. 

Question.  Who  exercises  the  authority  of  adjusting  such  cases? 

Answer.  The  collector,  naval  officer,  and  surveyor,  jointly. 

Question.  In  such  cases,  do  you,  as  auditor,  become  ever  informed 
of  the  data  upon  which  demands  of  the  government  are  adjusted?  or 
are  you  simply  informed  of  the  payment  to  the  government  of  a  spe- 
cific sum  of  money  ? 

Answer.  The  auditor  has  always  the  appraised  value  of  the  goods. 

Question.  Is  the  appraisement  of  the  goods  furnished  to  you? 

Answer.  Always. 

Question.  Through  the  law  bureau  ? 
Answer.  Yes. 

Question.  What  is  the  object  of  that  mode  of  adjustment  ? 
Answer.  To  save  costs. 

Question.  Is  that  the  only  motive  inducing  that  mode  of  adjusting 
these  demands? 

Answer.  The  motives  are  to  save  costs  and  delay. 

Question.  Are  not  these  violations  of  law  sometimes  adjusted  or 
compromised  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  publicity  of  legal  pro- 
ceedings; and  if  so,  through  the  intervention  of  what  officer  is  such 
compromise  effected  ?  What  data  is  furnished  to  your  office  in  such 
a  case,  and  by  whom  is  the  money  paid  to  you? 

Answer.  To  avoid  publicity  may  be  an  inducement  upon  the  part 
of  the  claimant  to  settle  in  that  way.  I  have  no  data  of  such  cases, 
and  am  not  aware  of  any  such  compromises  being  made  beyond  the 
mere  fact  of  receiving  the  money,  which  is  always  paid  in  the  same 
way.    I  always  know  the  party  by  whom  it  is  paid  ? 

Question.  Does  your  record  show  the  person  by  whom  the  money  is 
paid  ? 

Answer.  It  shows  the  name  of  the  party,  and  his  admission  of  the 
forfeiture  is  filed. 

Question.  No  sum  of  money,  then,  is  ever  paid  to  your  office  ex- 
cept in  one  of  two  ways  :  either  the  money  comes  through  a  regular 
judgment  of  forfeiture,  or  through  what  would  be  called  a  compromise 
of  the  transaction  without  the  publicity  of  legal  proceedings? 


16 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  It  comes  either  through  the  judgment  of  a  court,  or  as  a 
voluntary  payment  by  the  claimant  of  the  goods. 

Question.  But  where  the  payment  is  voluntary  the  record  shows 
by  whom  paid  and  for  what  paid? 

Answer.  It  shows  the  person  for  whom  paid,  for  what  paid,  and  the 
appraised  value  which  forms  the  basis  of  the  payment. 

Question.  In  such  cases  is  the  appraised  value  of  the  property  for- 
feited always  paid  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Under  whose  direction  is  that  appraisement  always  made? 
Answer.  By  the  United  States  appraisers. 
Question.  By  whom  are  they  appointed? 

Answer.  By  the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate.  Three  are  appointed  for  this  port,  in  addition  to  a 
general  appraiser. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  instance,  or  have  you  heard  of  any, 
or  of  any  facts  tending  to  create  a  suspicion  of  the  existence  of  any 
such,  where  property  seized  by  any  officer  of  the  government  for  a 
violation,  or  alleged  violation,  of  the  revenue  laws  has  been  released 
by  any  authority  whatever,  except  on  the  judgment  of  a  court,  with- 
out the  appraised  value  of  the  property  being  paid  into  your  office? 

Answer.  I  know  of  no  such  cases,  and  have  no  suspicion  that  any 
such  have  ever  occurred. 

Question.  If  property  is  seized,  then  it  is  either  regularly  con- 
demned or  released,  or  the  value  of  the  property  is  paid  into  your 
office  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  In  all  cases? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Will  you  furnish  to  the  committee  a  statement  of  the 
moneys  paid  into  your  office  during  the  four  years  preceding  the  first 
of  December,  1862,  on  account  of  violation  of  the  revenue  laws,  and 
specifying  for  what  paid  ;  whether  on  a  judicial  condemnation,  com- 
promise, or  as  the  appraised  value  of  the  property  ;  the  person  or  per- 
sons by  whom  paid,  with  such  a  description  of  the  property  as  may 
be  conveniently  furnished  ;  also  the  amount  paid  during  each  of  said 
years,  and  how  much  of  it  has  been  paid  to  the  collector,  naval  officer, 
and  surveyor  for  each  of  said  years  ? 

Answer.  I  will  furnish  such  a  statement. 

The  following  is  the  statement  subsequently  furnished : 


STATEMENTS 

OF 

FINES.  PENALTIES.  AND  FORFEITURES 

ACCRUED  IN 

THE  DISTRICT  OF  NEW  YORK- 


Part  iii 


2 


18 


TESTIMONY. 


Statement  of fives, penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued  in  the  district 


Date. 


Description  of  property. 


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 
value,  or  fine. 


1858. 

Dec.  31      One  case,  C  No.  3,  and  one  bundle,  C  No.  4,  containing  embroideries,  &c.  Judicial  condemnation . 

31      Five  cases,  [S]  7,  8,  11,  13,  16.  containing  sheepskins,  &c    do.. 

31    |  One  box  and  one  valise,  Daniel  Dix,  containing  laces,  &c    do., 

31    I  One  parcel  without  mark,  containing  embroideries,  &c  [   .do. 

31      One  parcel  without  mark,  containing  precious  stones    do. 

31    I  865  1-10  boxes,  98  £  boxes,  2  cases  marked     P  P,  "  containing  cigars. ..    do. 

31  '    Six  cases,  C  VV  No.  3,  A  M  80,  81,  A  G  56,  8tc,  &c,  containing  straw   do. 

and  hair  braid,  &.c. 

31    j  89  cases,  S.  R  &  Co.,  10  cases.  S.  B.  &  Co.,  1  case,  S  B— y  57,  contain-   do . 

.    I     ing.glass,  fancy  goods,  &c 

One  package,  John  McKay,  containing  muslins,  laces,  &c    do. 


•  31 
1859. 
Jan.  31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

Feb.  28 

28 

28 
28 

28  I 
28 

Mar.  31 

31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 

April  30 

30 
30 

30 
30 
30 

May  31 
31 
31 

31 

31 

31 

June  30 

30 

30 

30 

30 
30 

July  31 

31 
31 


Fine  incurred  bv  Captain  Foster  of  bark  Teresa,  under  section  50  of  act  Fine    

of  March  2,  1799. 

Illegal  importation  released  from  forfeiture  by  Secretary  of  Treasury,    Fine  equivalent  to  duties. 

per  letter  December  29,  1858. 
65  tierces  and  27  barrels  molasses   Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 

tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation. 


do 


1,041  1- 10  boxes,  40  £  boxes,  marked  M  N,  and  other  cases,  containing 
cigars. 

14  cases,  SHG  1,  2,  3,  and  L  P  3496,  3497,  &c,  containing  cut-glass, 
china,  and  metal  goods. 

One  cask  whiskey,  marked  C  No.  1,  and  three  cases  brandy  '  Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

One  package,  containing  jewelry,  laces,  and  other  articles   Judicial  condemnation.. 

Two  dozen  bottles  whiskey    1  Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

102  i  boxfs,  containing  cigars   Judicial  condemnation . 

Two  trunks,  marked  Wm.  Brown,  containing  shirts,  linen,  &c  do 

One  case  and  one  barrel,  marked  A.  James,  containing  cigars   I   do 

One  parcel,  marked  Charles  Duponl,  containing  jewelry  and  other  |  do 

articles. 

A  quantity  of  chamois,  oil  fleshes,  glue,  and  other  articles  J  do 

One  case,  marked  Clark  &  Pendleton,  containing  cigars    do 

One  case,  marked  B  A  5934,  containing  corsets  \  do 

70  cases,  marked  F.  &  Co.,  containing  German  cigars     do 

Four  cases,  [A]  [B]  [C]  [DJ,  containing  embroideries   do 

One  case,  [E],  containing  embroideries   |  do 

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  by  Secretary  of   Fine  imposed  by  Secre 

Treasury.  tary  of  Treasury. 

100  bales  tobacco,  marked  P  E   Judicial  condemnation . . 

Two  case.  CF  A  H,  containing  statuettes     do  

Remission  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  ship  Humboldt,  by  warrant  filed  !  Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 

October  3,  1857.  |     tary  of  Treasury. 

One  case  optical  instruments,  marked  \.  B.  &  Co.  1617    do  * 

Two  cases  containing  48  bottles  cordial  !  Appraised  value  

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  1  Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 

I     tary  of  Treasury. 

Five  cases,  S.  H.  &  Co.,  containing  fancy  goods,  &c  '  Judicial  condemnation. 

One  case  [S]  containing  8,000  cigars  !  do  

Fine  incurred  bv  Captain  Larabee,  of  brig  Abbv  Thaxter,  under  section  i  Fine    

45  of  act  March  2,  1799. 

Bond  of  William  Lobach  and  Edward  Stucken  for  production  of  in-  j  Forfeiture   .. 

voice,  (per  Queen  of  the  Seas  for  Shanghae.) 

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture   Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 

■     tary  of  Treasury. 
Fine  incurred  by  master  of  ship  Betsey  Ames  under  section  24  of  act  I  Fine 

March  2,  1799. 

One  case,  marked  C.  S.  &,  Co.  350,  containing  head-dresses,  mock 
jewelry,  &c. 

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  


Three  eases  calfskins,  D  V  3938,  14.  13,  and  five  cases  D  V  3359,  8,  12, 
224,  4318. 

One  parcel,  marked  John  Sand,  containing  12  watches,  seized  from  a 

passenger  per  Kangaroo. 
One  box.  containing  850  cigars,  seized  from  a  passenger  per  Philadelphia 
One  barrel  rum,  27±  gallons,  J.  M.  V.,  by  J.  M.  Valerino,  per  Jaffa  


Judicial  condemnation. 


2  cold  watches,  3  silver  watches,  and  one  gold  chain,  &c,  &c  

1  package  without  mark,  containing  6  gold  watches  and  2  silver  watches 
1  case  L  F  S,  containing  stereoscopic  views,  &c    do. 


Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation.. 

Appraised  value  

Appraiser's  value  

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation 
 do  


TESTIMONY. 


19 


of  New  York  from  December  1,  1858,  to  December  1,  1859. 


Clamant?. 


L.  Struller 
P.  Herring 


John  Myers 


$907 
519 

1.00b 
121 
163 

2,426 

3,235 


91 
400 

3 

147 

4,551 

1,500 

19 

1,010 
3 


96  42 
103  27 
261 
225 


6.534 
667 
670 
2,000 
2,465 
535 
140 

1,469 
138 
400 

185 
12 
18 

8,287 
360 
189 

100 
21 
79 

201 
13 
3,003 

125 

20 
5 

181 
111 
196 


$145  57 
124  79 
145  21 
97  85 
65  47 
10L  89 


216  33 
91  63 


135  37 
90  60 


90  55 


92  29 

93  25 

102  74 
100  08 

189  02 
129  94 
76  61 

103  65 
126  42 

90  22 


1S3  83 
92  95 


70  60 


112  15 


101  17 

96  95 
100  52 


:380  84  I  

197  28  $98  64 
431  70  I  


16  28 
1,162  07 
1,617  90 

4.886  21 


200  00 

1  60 

73  52 

2,208  28 

704  70 

9  84 

459  73 
1  50 


79  28 
12  69 

3. 172  91 
'268  70 
297  04 
948  17 

1.169  29 
222  39 
70  23 

642  67 

"  26o'66' 


92  64 
6  00 
9  15 

4,143  54 
144  70 
94  50 

50  00 

10  50 


33  58 
6  60 
1,445  50  j 
62  50  j 


10  20  :. 

2  55  ; . 


32  83 
143  90 
8  02 

27  25 
387  36 
539  30 

32  88 
143  90 
8  02 

27  25 
387  35 
539  30 

■  1  &o 
32  88 
143  90 
8  09 
27  25 
387  35 
539  30 

1.628  73 

1.628  74 

1,628  74 

66  67 

66  66 

66  67 

60 
24  51 

60 
24  51 

60 
24  50 

736  10 

736  09 

736  09 

234  90 

234  90 

234  90 

3  28 

3  23 

3  28 

153  24 
50 

153  24 
50 

153  24 
50 

1  37 
3  34 
26  43 
37  60 

1  38 
3  34 
26  42 
37  59 

1  38 
3  34 
26  43 
37  59 

1  0^7  fi4 
89  57 
99  Ol 
316  06 
389  77 
74  13 
23  41 

1  0^7  fi4 
89  57 
99  01 
316  06 
389  76 
74  13 

1  0^7  fi4 
89  57 
99  01 
316  06 

"?>5Q  7K 
oct)  10 

74  13 

214  ^3 
15  14 
66  66 

15  15 
66  67 

15  15 

UD  O  1 

30  88 

2  00 

3  05 

30  88 
0  go 
3  05 

30  88 
^  00 
3  05 

1,381  18 
48  24 
31  50 

1,331  18 
48  23 
31  50 

1,381  18 
48  23 
31  50 

16  66 

16  67 

16  67 

3  50 

3  50 

3  50 

13  20 

13  20 

13  20 

33  50 

33  50 

33  50 

2  20 

2  20 

2 

481  83 

481  84 

481  84 

20  84 

20  83 

20  83 

3  40  ■ 
85 

3  40 

85 

3  40 

85 

26  61  i 
4  85  : 
31  94 

26  61 
4  85 
31  94 

26  61 
4  85 
31  94 

20 


TESTIMONY. 

Statement  of fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued 


Description  of  property. 


41  tubs  Swiss  cheese,  R  G,  2  casks  sapsago  cheese, S,  14  casks  do,  &c.,&c 

1 L  cases  S  li,8a  18,  containing  hatters'  furs,  &c  .    

Bond  of  J.  E.  Hanford  to  procure  landing  certificate  

One  cask,  containing  18  gallons  whiskey,  released  from  forfeiture   


24  cases,  marked  F  T,  Ac,  containing  calfskins  and  other  merchandise  . 

One  ease,  G  A  H  No.  89  !,  containing  watch  materials  

Two  kegs  without  mark,  containing  quinine  and  other  merchandise.... 

800  J  boxes  cigars,  marked  Bella  Cuban  a  

Fine  incurred  by  Capt.  Gardner,  of  bark  John  Benson,  under  sec.  50, 
act  1799. 

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  


Six  cases,  S  &  II,  containing  corsets,  and  other  cases  

Six  cases,  marked  A  M  &.  C,  containing  manufactures  of  silk,  corsets,  &c, 

One  case,  K  No.  4,  containing  chinaware,  8tc,  and  other  ~oods  

One  box,  marked  "  Jas.  McCreery,"  containing  one  stereoscope,  &c  

One  parcel,  marked  "John  Foggan,"  containing  embroideries,  &c  

Two  packages,  marked  "  Joseph  Fletcher,"  containing  gold  watches  and 
other  jewelry. 

One  package,  marked  "Henri  Williams,"  containing  thread  lace,  &c  .. 

175  gross  hock  bottles  and  other  articles  

One  trunk,  without  mark,  containing  silk  and  lace  mantillas,  &c  

Four  cases,  C  L,  containing  ultramarine  and  other  articles  .   

One  package,  containing  5  dozen  ciear-holders  

N  N  P,  one  case,  containing  35  dozen  pairs  of  embroidered  slippers.  ... 

One  parcel  of  jewelry  

30  cases,  S  B  2400  a  2429,  and  other  cases,  containing  cheese  

100  1-10  boxes  cigars,  &c  

One  case,  B  del  Pozo,  containing  cigars   

One  box,  containing  a  lot  of  toys,  child's  doll,  metal  and  wood  boxes, 

and  5  indecent  photographs. 
Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture   


441  bales  tobacco,  P  H— A  O,  &c,  &c  

One  parcel,  marked  "  Colomb,"  containing  a  gold  watch,  jewelry,  &c, 

7  casks  soda  condemned  in  the  district  of  Rhode  Island  ,  

One  package,  marked  Mr.  Fourrier,  containing  gold  watches  and  jewelry, 

30  parcels  of  merchandise,  E  B,  &c,  containing  tools,  Stc  — 

One  package,  marked  "Denmead,"  containing  12  Scotch  caps,  ribbons, &c, 
One  case,  marked  A  E,  A.  Moller  &  Co.,  No.  6,  containing  jewelry  .... 
One  case,  [C]  No.  58,  containing  embroideries,  &c  , 


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 

value,  or  fine. 


Judicial  condemnation  . 

 do   

Forfeiture  

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation  . 

 do  

 do  

...  do....   

Fine  


Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation  . 

 do   

....  do  

 do  

 do  

,  do  


 do  

,.t...do  

  do  

 do....   

Appraised  value  

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation 

Appraised  value  

 do  

Judicial  condemnation 

 do  

 do  

 do   

 do  


Statement  of fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued,  in  the  district 


Description  of  property. 


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 
value,  or  fine. 


11  1-10  boxes  and  1  bag  of  cigars,  seized  from  on  board  schooner 

Southerner  from  Havana. 
Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  


One  trunk,  containing  watches,  jewelry,  &c  

One  case,  N  R  No.  7,  containing  embroideries  

One  parcel,  marked  "Gainbriel,"  containing  jewelry  

One  package,  marked  "Simon,"  containing  jewelry  

One  package,  without  mark,  containing  watch  movements  

One  carpet-bag,  containing  needlework,  &c    

16  cases,  marked  0  L  166,  172,  44  B  B  177,  &c  ,  containing  flowers  and 
confectionery. 


Appraised  value   

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

Judicial  condemnation. 

 do  

 do   

 do  


TESTIMONY. 

in  the  district  of  New  York,  fyc. — Continued. 


21 


$5,804  06 
10,000  02 
40  00 
7  80 

11,628  15 
650  00 
552  60 
1,269  00 
400  00 

10  20 

900  80 

4.002  75 
410  00 
200  50 
849  45 
180  58 

175  92 

3.003  80 
87  00 

5,003  19 
205  00 
274  00 
800  00 

6,800  23 
359  90 
224  50 
15  00 

29  10 

16,407  00 
75  00 
4,650  00 
4,514  00 
4,123  67 
113  50 
337  19 
761  35 


139,779  37 


$242  72 
76  75 
131  69 
195  24 


79  40 

125  95 

71  60 

66  40 

144  14 

111  91 

98  32 


87  00 
133  04 

76  40 

77  78 
74  40 

166  00 
113  94 
102  34 


309  30 
"ii'62 


124  86 
75  48 
112  27 
132  16 


,180  32 


$2,902  03 
5,000  01 
20  00 
3  90 

5,692  72 
286  63 
210  46 
536  88 
200  00 

5  10 

410  70 
1,938  40 
169  20 

33  85 
352  66 


1,501  90 


2,432  57 
26  10 
98  11 
362  80 
3,317  11 
122  98 
9  91 
7  50 

14  55 

8,048  85 
37  50 
3,478  79 
2,257  00 
1,999  40 


112  46 
314  60 


67,491  25 


$98  64 


$967  34 


1  30 

1,897  57 
95  54 
70  15 
178  96 
66  67 

1  70 

136  90 
646  14 
56  40 
33  41 
117  55 
22  89 

25  86 
500  64 


810  86 
34  16 
32  71 
120  94 
1,105  70 
40  99 
37  42 
2  50 

4  85 

2,682  95 
12  50 
386  53 
752  34 
666  47 
12  68 
37  48 
104  87 


22,003  07 


$967  34 
1,666  67 
6  67 
1  30 

1,897  57 
95  54 
70  15 
178  96 
66  66 

1  70 

1?6  90 
646  13 
56  40 
33  42 
117  55 
22  89 

25  87 
500  63 


810  86 
34  17 
32  70 
120  93 
1,105  71 
40  99 
37  42 
2  50 

4  85 

2,682  95 
12  50 
386  53 
752  33 
666  47 
12  67 
37  49 
104  86 


22,003  03 


of  New  York  from  December  1,  1859,  to  December  1,  1860. 


Claimants. 


Charles  Warms. 


/ 

o 

« 

y 

o 
p 

o 

a 

o 

i 

O 

o 

5 

$51  00 

$25  50 

34  86 

17  43 

2,871  13 

$286  77 

1,292  18 

319  54 

109  30 

105  12 

4,713  06 

323  78 

2,194  64 

2,820  92 

239  07 

1,290  93 

148  50 

98  24 

96  75 

95  22 

1,803  82 

93  85 

854  98 

$645  46 


$8  50 

5  81 

430  73 
35  04 
731  54 
215  16 
16  76 
51 

285  00 


$8  50 

5  81 

430  73 
35  04 
731  55 
215  15 
16  75 
51 

285  00 


te. 

0. 
29 
•Jit 

29 
29 

29 

29 
29 

31 
31 
31 
31 
31 

31 
31 
31 
30 

30 
30 
30 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 
31 
31 

31 
31 
31 

30 

30 

30 
30 

31 

31 

31 
31 

31 
31 
31 
31 

31 
31 
31 
31 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
31 
31 
31 
31 


TESTIMONY. 

Statement  of fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued 


Description  of  property. 


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 
value,  or  fine. 


1  parcel,  marked  LM  No.  113,  containing  jewelry,  &c  

1  case,  marked  B  No.  102,  containing  galloons    

17  casks,  marked  B  S  No.  28  a  44,  containing  prunes,  and  other  casks  .. 
48  casks  oil,  S  F,  91  a  138,  and  72  chests  of  indigo,  PS — A,  and  14  chests 

indigo  [P  S]— A,  101  a  114. 
Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture.  ,  

4  gold  watches  and  2  silver  watches  

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  


One  box,  marked  "  E.  Bandelari,"  containing  coral  ornaments  

A  quantity  of  embroidered  collars,  chemisettes,  sleeves,  and  flounces. . 

Two  cases,  marked  R.  A.  &  Co.— M  &  S,  containing  cigars  

One  parcel,  marked  Wallman  C.  Wallman,  containing  watches,  &c. ... 
One  case,  marked  M  TNo.  2,  containing  spectacles,  stereoscopic  slides, 
&c. 

1  bale  wool  mats,  marked  4  [101]  4— 16  

1  case,  W  VV  No.  1781,  containing  engravings,  8tc  

1  case,  H  &  T  No.  67,  containing  optical  instruments  

2  cases,  D  &  B  No.  1262,  1263,  containing  stereoscopic  views,  &c,  re- 
leased from  forfeiture. 

1  package,  marked  "John  Arthur,"  containing  jewelry  

1  case,  T  T  No.  2,  containing  books  '.  

1  package,  containing  mock  jewelry,  seized  from  Rosenthal,  passenger 
per  Arago. 

1  box,  marked  H  &  S  No.  1011,  containing  125  cigar  tubes  and  54  do. 
indecent. 

1  case,  S.  B.  &  Co.,  6919,  containing  snuffboxes,  &c,  released  from 
forfeiture. 

2  cases,  [S]  S  553,  554,  containing  handkerchiefs,  fee,  released  from 
forfeiture. 

10  barrels  of  ale,  containing  less  than  40  gallons  each,  released  from 
forfeiture. 

176  boxes  cigars,  marked  J  R  

1  tin  box  and  1  package,  containing  silks  and  ribbons  

1  case,  marked  A  AS — G  No.  6,  containing  cigars;  remainder  of  cases 
acquitted  by  the  court. 

1  trunk  and  1  bag,  containing  cigars   

1  case,  marked  L.  M.  &  Co.,  containing  cigars  

1  case,  marked  M — f- 100,  containing  capes  and  sewing  silk  

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  


Judicial  condemnation 

 do  

  do  

 do  

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

Judicial  condemnation. 

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

Judicial  condemnation. 

 do  


Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation. 

 do  

Appraised  value  


,  do. 


Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
 do  


,do. 


Judicial  condemnation. 

 do  

 do  


1  case,  marked  A  W  1374,  containing  photographs,  released  from  for- 
feiture. 

1  case,  J  E  289,  containing  75  pieces  porcelain,  (2  figures  obscene)  

2  cases,  G  &  N— N  986,  987,  containing  optical  instruments,  released 
from  forfeiture. 

4  cases,  A  &  E  4000-1-4-5,  containing  bleached  cottons  and  other  cases 
and  goods. 

4i  boxes  and  11  1-10  boxes  cigars,  and  2  kegs  tamarinds,  found  in  bark 
.V.  VV.  Bridge,  from  Matanzas. 

3  packages,  L  83,  84,  85,  containing  hair  and  bristles,  and  other  packages 
1  case,  M  VV— N  344,  containing  fancy  goods,  released  from  forfeiture. . 

8  packages,  containing  porcelain,  pearls,  jewelry,  &c  

A  quantity  of  rags,  sumac,  almonds,  and  sulphur   .. 

200  cases,  M  &  G,  containing  olive  oil  

Bark  Julie,  for  violation  of  the  navigation  act  of  March  1,  1817  


Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
 do  


Appraised  value  

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation. 


Five  cases,  M  Y,  1  a  5,  containing  cigars  

Two  cases,  R.  J  H,  2405,  2406,  containing  porcelain  figures,  &c  

1  parcel,  S  &  L,  containing  watches  

42  bales,  F  M  T,  containing  wool  

1  parcel,  containing  fans,  silks,  fee,  seized  for  landing  without  permit. 

1  parcel,  containing  diamond  jewelry  

126  bales,  marked  [A,]  containing  padding  

3  cases,  marked  C  L,  508  a  510,  containing  confectionery  

1  bale,  marked  R  H  6226,  containing  woolens  

Three  pipes  of  gin  

4  cases,  marked  II  M,  containing  confectionery  

1  parcel,  without  mark,  containing  jewelry,  407  gold  finger-rings,  &c... 

1  package,  containing  306  watches  

1  case,  A  R,  No.  874,  containing  watchmakers'  tools  

1  package,  without  mark,  containing  embroideries  


Appraised  value  

Judicial  condemnation. 

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

Judicial  condemnation. 

 do  

 do  

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

Judicial  condemnation. 

,  do  

 do  

 do  

Appraised  value  

Judicial  condemnation . 

 do  

 do  


TESTIMONY. 

in  the  district  of  New  York,  &c. — Continued. 


23 


Claimants. 


E.  &  J.  Deraismes 


Simon  Bache  &  Co 


A.  &  E.  Scheitlin. 


James  Salter. 


A.Wallach. 


A.  Moller  &  Co  

Goldbacker  &  Newburgh 
Bros. 


Emden,  Gaus  &  Co. 


$705  46 
930  00 
2,503  46 
13,745  50 

151  98 

165  00 
48  04 

200  00 
956  65 
862  40 
373  75 
321  78 

129  48 
66  50 
54  57 

95  34 

475  00 
125  20 

96  00 

65  00 
68  40 

196  80 

38  64 

662  95 
137  00 
116  40 

66  20 
84  38 
93  09 
31  08 

115  05 

40  00 

282  48 

6,508  14 

102  80 

2,005  50 
56  16 

2,991  00 
12,413  00 
446  40 
289  00 

978  00 
153  50 
156  25 
3,048  40 
88  00 
965  00 
18,300  25 
202  00 
585  81 
133  20 
347  26 
307  60 
5,105  25 
711  43 
135  00 


$130  73 
141  50 
103  97 
273  17 


63  62 


64  32 
204  08 
161  96 
111  87 
109  18 

90  71 
66  50 
54  57 


79  80 
61  81 


129  88 
97  57 
113  25 

66  20 
84  38 
93  09 


162  44 


94  89 


109  68 
249  79 
71  25 


206  56 
139  30 
100  07 
109  94 


82  19 
337  50 
64  54 
112  84 
63  17 
67  45 
67  88 
140  79 
131  50 
63  20 


$287  36 
394  25 
1.199  74 
6,' 736  16 

75  99 

18  88 
24  02 

35  68 
376  28 
350  22 
130  94 
106  30 


$50  00 


47 

67 

197 

60 

79 

48 

00 

32 

50 

34 

20 

98 

40 

19 

32 

266 

54 

15  54 

57  53 

20  00 
141  24 

3,172  85 

51  40 

955  30 
28  08 

1,440  66 
6,081  61 
187  57 
144  50 

385  72 


1,469 

23 

44 

00 

441 

41 

8, 981 

37 

36 

46 

236 

48 

3 

43 

139 

90 

119 

86 

2,482 

23 

289 

96 

4 

30 

$95  79 

$95  79 

$95  79 

131  41 

131  42 

131  42 

399  92 

399  91 

399  92 

2,245  39 

2,245  39 

2,245  39 

25  33 

25  33 

25  33 

27  50 

27  50 

27  50 

8  01 

8  01 

8  00 

16  67 

16  66 

16  67 

125  43 

125  43 

125  43 

116  74 

116  74 

116  74 

43  65 

43  65 

43  64 

35  43 

35  43 

35  44 

12  93 

12  92 

12  92 

65  87 
20  87 
16  00 

10  84 

11  40 

32  80 

6  44 

88  85 
13  14 
1  05 


5  18 
19  18 

6  66 

47  08 

1,057  62 

17  14 

318  44 
9  36 

480  22 
2,027  20 
62  53 

48  16 

128  58 
4  73 

18  73 
489  75 

14  66 
147  14 
2,993  80 
33  67 
78  83 
22  20 


827  41 
96  65 
22  50 


15  89 

65  87 
20  87 

16  00 

10  83 

11  40 

32  80 

6  44 

88  84 
13  14 
1  05 


5  18 
19  17 

6  67 

47  08 

1,057  62 

17  13 

318  43 
9  36 

480  22 
2,027  20 
62  52 

48  17 

128  57 
4  73 

18  73 
489  74 

14  67 
147  13 
2,993  79 
33  66 
78  83 
22  20 
46  64 
39  95 
827  41 
96  66 
22  50 


24 


TESTIMONY. 

Statement  of fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued 


Date. 


1860. 
Oct.  31 
31 

Nov.  30 

30 

30 
30 
30 
30 
30 


Description  of  property. 


1  tin  case,  marked  G.  Joachim,  containing  gold  leaf  

2  cases,  marked  JWQ  3570  and  3571,  containing  optical  instruments, 
released  from  forfeiture. 

9  cases,  marked  J.  H.  &.  Co.,  Nos.  26  a  34,  containing  smoking  pipes,  &c, 

released  from  forfeiture. 
1  parcel,  marked  "L.  Young,"  containing  gold  watch,  scarf-pin,  &c, 

seized  from  a  passenger  per  Persia. 

5  dozen  plated  spoons  and  other  goods  

Two  packages  of  silverware  and  jewelry,  without  mark  

32  cases,  marked  R  Nos.  1  a  32,  containing  red  wine  

8  bales  woolen  cloth,  marked  C  B  Nos.  7880  a  7887  

A  quantity  of  lace,  I  gold  watch,  and  3  neck  chains  


Total . 


Whether  00  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 
value,  or  fine 


Judicial  condemnation 
Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

,   do   


Appraised  value  

J  udicial  condemnation . 

 do   

 do  

  do  

 do  


Statement  of  fines,  'penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued  in  the  dis 


Description  of  property. 


30 
30 
30 

May  31 
31 
31 
31 


1  case,  "  A.  Geiger,"  containing  mock  jewelry,  &c  

[C]  1  a  13,  13  casks  ale,  each  4  dozen,  per  Andrew  Jackson  

12  cases,  marked  H  B,  containing  paper  -.   

HM1  and  2,  2  cases  confectionery,  forfeited  under  act  March  2,  1857.  . 

P  B  446,  1  case  printed  books,  photographs,  &c  do  do  

4  cases,  marked  A  L  2745  a  2748,  containing  human  hair  

2  cases,  marked  C  J  No.  525  and  526,  containing  gold  and  silver  watches 

1  package  of  jewelry,  marked  John  Calder  

1  case,  marked  S  H  and  C  No.  44,  containing  pantaloons  

1  bale,  D  No.  11,  containing  silk  and  cloth    

46  barrels  of  ale,  marked  [C]  1  a  46  

1  bale  marked  D  No.  10,  containing  cloth,  and  package,  "  Thos.  Myers," 

containing  mantillas. 

1  package,  marked  Mr.  McMahon,  containing  jewelry   — 

1  package,  marked  M  R  B  No.  28,  containing  human  hair,  metals,  &c. 
Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  


1  case,  marked  R  and  G  AW  No.  101,  containing  perfumery,  &c  

1  case,  marked  T  C  E  No.  80,  containing  meerschaum  pipes"  

1  package,  marked  Valler,  containing  laces,  &c  

1  bale,  marked  [J  H— N  Y]  No.  112,  containing  vestings  

2  cases,  marked  I  A  R  107,  108,  containing  artificial  flowers  

272  baskets  India-rubber,  marked  T  B  C— B,  released  from  forfeiture 

1  case,  C  R  No.  6,  containing  mathematical  and  optical  instruments  

3  hhds.  and  12  cases,  containing  whiskey,  released  from  forfeiture  

5  cases,  E  B  H  1  a  5,  containing  gold  and  silver  watches  and  watch 
movements. 

Cargo  of  the  schooner  Restless,  released  from  forfeiture  

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture  

!  1  gold  and  diamond  snuff-box,  one  diamond  brooch,  &c  

19  cases  cigars,  marked  Z.  B.  &  Co  ;  

1  package,  marked  Mr  Cromby,  containing  gold  rings  

!  2  cases,  marked  II  M  1  and  2,  containing  watches  and  clothes  

!  4  cases,  marked  [RT-li]  1339,  1340,  1342, 1343,  containing  silk  laces.... 

1  packace,  marked  "  Miller,"  and  1  package,  marked  ;£  Isaacs,"  con- 
taining watches,  &c. 


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 
value,  or  fine. 


Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

Appraised  value  

Judicial  condemnation. 

Appraised  value  

 do  

Judicial  condemnation . 

 do  

 do  

 do  

 do  

 do  

 do  


Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
 do  


Judicial  condemnation . 

 do  

 do  

 do  

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

Judicial  condemnation 

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

Judicial  condemnation 

Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

 do  

Judicial  condemnation 

 do  

 do  

 do  

 do  

 do  


TESTIMONY. 

in  the  district  of  New  York,  &c. — Continued. 


25 


Claimants. 


#116  00 

Jas.  W.  Uueen  &  Co   203  07 

J.  Hamburger  &  Co  j         85  92 

 j         95  00 

  !  550  00 

  401  30 

 I  550  50 

  1,521  63 

  155  16 

j  

  96,570  69 


$97  93 


71  50 
69  74 
71  26 
112  83 
77  30 


$101  53 

42  96 

47  50 

239  25 
165  78 
239  62 
704  40 
28 


44,733  57  ;$695  46 


$6  03 
33  85 

14  32 

15  84  j 

79  75  I 
55  26 
79  88 
234  80 
25  86 


14,906  01 


$6  02 
33  84 

14  32 

15  83 

79  75 
55  26 
79  87 
234  80 
25  86 


14,905  86 


trict  of  New  York  from  December  1,  1860,  to  December  1,  1861. 


Claimants 


Jas.  Callender  &  Co  

H.' Maillard '.  '.Y.V.*. '. '. '. 
Paul  Bossange  

R.  &  G.  A.  Wright  0 

Tappan,  McBurney  &  Co. . 


$60  00 

93  00 
690  80 
79  66 
91  25 
,000  00 
.998  35 
'170  00 
112  50 
79  50 
203  72 
165  80 


300  00 
650  00 
173  46 

93  39 
305  72 
165  33 
95  30 
43  26 
1,050  00 

130  00 
77  10 

2,000  00 

2,751  36 

79  22 
2,125  00 
1,506  13 
236  44 
394  32 
731  00 
235  00 


78  00 
124  19 

75  80 
102  61 

74  00 
115  12 

75  72 


89  20 


115  01 

106  66 
95  30 
43  26 


64  12 


170  95 


153  70 
87  31 
109  09 
119  85 
146  56 
109  06 


$30  00 

46  50 
308  72 
39  83 
45  62 
461  00 
1,937  08 
9  20 


7  18 


116  80 

280  40 
86  73 


95  36 


525  00 

88 
38  55 

914  53 


I     1,375  68 

39  61 
985  65 
709  41 
9  13 
137  24 
292  22 
8  44 


$2  75 


41  45 


58  75 


$10  00 

15  50 
102  90 
13  28 
15  21 
153  66 
645  70 

28  34 
3  29 

91 

29  54 
13  81 


175  00 


21  67 
12  85 


304  84 

458  56 

13  21 
328  55 
236  47 
39  41 
45  74 
97  41 
19  58 


$10  00 

15  50 
102  91 
13  27 
15  21 
153  67 
645  69 

28  33 
3  30 

92 

29  53 
13  82 


38  94 

38  93 

38  93 

93  46 

93  47 

93  47 

28  91 

28  91 

28  91 

15  57 

15  57 

15  56 

31  79 

31  78 

31  78 

19  55 

19  56 

19  56 

175  00 

21  67 

12  85 

304  84 
458  56 

13  20 
328  55 
236  47 

39  40 
45  75 
97  40 
19  59 


26 


TESTIMONY. 

Statement  of fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued 


Description  of  property. 


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 
value,  or  fine. 


10  rases,  marked  J.  H.  Hansom  &  Co., containing  India-rubber  goods.... 

1  package,  marked  Mr.  Morland,  containing  jewelry  

2  cases,  S  W  1  and  2,  containing  medicinal  preparations  

3  cases,  marked  [R  and  C,]  &c,  containing  paintings,  &c  

A  B  270,  containing  watch  glasses  

1  case,  marked  A  C,  containing  cigars  

1  package,  marked  "  A.  D.  Clourt,"  containing  jewelry  

1  package,  containing  jewelry,  seized  from  Mr.  Goldsmith  

3  cases, marked  [V  —  Pj  [ V — C,]  containing  brandy  

8  cases,  marked  [P]  I  a  8,  containing  Guava  jelly  

1  case,  leather  and  metal,  S  T  No.  9,  and  1  case  pocket-books,  S  T  No.  8. 

1  case,  A  D  No.  1,  containing  gold  and  silver  watches   

2  gold  and  diamond  finger-ring 


Judicial  condemnation 

 do  

 do  

 do  

,  do  

 do  

 do  

 do  

,  do  

 do  

 do  

 do   

 do  


I  package,  containing  watches  and  jewelry  i  Appraised  value 


fcc. 


A  quantity  of  shaw  ls,  handkerchiefs 

A  quantity  of  laces  

12  cases  toys,  M.  L.  &  Co.,  41  a  44,  9052,  9053,  8951,  8952,  9221,  9222, 
9413,  9414. 

The  schooner  Genoa,  her  tackle  and  cargo  

7  barrels  sugar,  forfeited  for  not  being  upon  manifest  


Judicial  condemnation 

Appraised  value  

 do  


Judicial  condemnation 
Forfeiture  


3  bales,  marked  "  Louis  Glauz,7'  containing 
12  gold  chains,  and  other  articles 


furs, 


&c  i  Judicial  condemnation 

 do   ... 


75  casks,  B  B  S,  6  casks,  B,  and  24  casks,  [C,]  containing  salted  skins, 

1  package,  marked  liana  Brookman.  containing  penknives  

2  cases,  C-  P.  &  Co.,  22  and  23,  containing  balloons  , 

1  diamond  stomacher,  1  emerald,  and  1  pair  ear-rings  

A  quantity  of  ribbons  I  do  

3  cases,  F  W  C  43,  45,  50,  and  6  cases,  F  W  &c,  containing  calfskins  ..  Judicial  condemnation 
A  lot  of  jewelry  and  silverware  I  Appraised  value  


  do  

Appraised  value , 

 do  

 do  


Total . 


Statement  of  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued  in  the  district 


Date. 


Description  of  property. 


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 
value,  or  fine. 


1861. 
Dec.  31 
31 
31 
31 
1862. 
Jan.  31 
31 

31 

31 
31 
31 

31 
31 

Feb.  23 

28 


A  O,  200  cases  of  prepared  vegetables  

F  J  E  34,  35,  105,  108,  109,  five  cases  optical  instruments 

1  package  watches  and  jewelry.  

1  package,  containing  4  gold  scarf-pins  and  2  finger-rings. 

234  boxes,  marked  F,  containing  sugar  

252  boxes,  marked  A,  G2  boxes,  marked  B,  165  boxes,  marked  C,  con- 
taining sugar. 

56  hhds  sugar,  marked  A  101  to  150,  175  to  180  

1  package,  containing  2  gold  watches,  &c  

F  O  857  to  864,  eight  cases  calfskins  

J  W52,  1  case  chains.  W  B  1109,  1110,  912,  913,  4  cases  leather  and 

metal. 

1,200  cases  sweet  oil,  marked  D  L    

2  cases  photograph  paper  and  chemicals,  marked  F  B  303,  304  

A  B261,  15, 16,  &c  ,9  cases,  containing  silk  velvets,  laces,  calfskins,  &c 

13  cases,  containing  cigars,  pipes,  and  boxes  

I  trunk.  I  bundle,  and  2  cases,  containing  cigars,  china,  sweetmeats, 

and  jelly. 
1  trunk,  containing  cigars 


Judicial  condemnation. 
,   do  


 do  .  , 

 do  

Appraised  value, 
 do  


Judicial  condemnation. 

 do  

Appraised  value  

 do  

 do  


April  30      1  package,  marked  Mr.  Campaignar,  containing  1  gold  watch, 
and  ring. 

30    I  2  packages,  containing  a  quantity  of  watches  

30   1  1  package,  containing  a  quantity  of  jewelry  and  watches  


 do 

chain,  !  do. 


TESTIMONY. 

in  the  district  of  New  York,  &fc. — Continued. 


27 


Claimants. 


§98 

26 

§93  26 

65 

35 

65  35 

29 

64 

29  64 

100 

32 

100  32 

79 

50 

79  50 

288 

90 

104  85 

114 

50 

95  51 

466 

00 

74  79 

277 

80 

108  40 

124 

25 

108  88 

334 

117  39 

525 

00 

70  67 

370 

00 

71  65 

35 

00 

4.985 

74 

*i43*6i" 

50 
878 

00 

89 

300 

00 

142  20 

75 

00 

550 

00 

85  00 

360 

00 

81  45 

24.986 

48 

441  2L 

20 

00 

450 

00 

500 

00 

72 

00 

2.100 

00 

96  00 

'  99 

00 

58.222 

79 

4,309  35 

•592  02 


195  61 
84  70 


108  58 
227  16 
149  18 

17  50 
2.421  37 

25  00 
439  45 

78  90 

37  50 
232  50 
139  27 
12.272  63 

10  00 
225  00 
250  00 

36  00 
1,002  00 

49  50 


•S7  68 


1,210  68 


§90 

07 

§30 

68 

§30  68 

6 

33 

6 

33 

6  33 

65 

20 

65 

20 

65  20 

28 

24 

28 

23 

28  23 

2 

56 

2 

56 

2  57 

36 

2U 

35 

19 

36  19 

75 

72 

75 

73 

75  72 

49 

73 

49 

72 

49  72 

5 

84 

5 

83 

5  83 

403 

56 

403 

56 

403  56 

8 

34 

8 

33 

8  33 

146 

48 

146 

48 

146  48 

26 

30 

26 

30 

26  30 

12 

50 

12 

50 

12  50 

50 

77 

50 

77  50 

46 

42 

46 

43 

46  43 

4.090 

88 

4.090 

88 

4.090  88 

'  3 

34 

3 

33 

'    3  33 

75 

00 

75 

DO 

75  00 

83 

34 

83 

33 

83  33 

12 

00 

12 

00 

12  00 

334 

00 

334 

00 

334  00 

16 

50 

16 

50 

16  50 

26.641  32  1.321  31       8.650  30!     8.650  26      8.650  25 


of  New  York  from  December  1,  1861,  to  December  1,  1862. 


Claimants. 


F.  J.  Emerick 
J.  San  Roman. 


Dinjrelstedt  &  Co  

J.  Wetzlar  &  Brother 


A.  Boscher  

J.  Hamburger  &.  Co. 
M.  Cohen  


J.  L.  Coit. 


A.  W.  Freeman 
James  Cook  . . . 


§1.485  00 
2^500  00 
'320  00 
25  00 

7.252  00 
14,606  20 

4,300  00 
113  61 
5,000  00 
2,015  27 

3,269  00 
76  50 
7.500  00 
2. 123  15 
144  50 

61  25 
90  00 

222  40 
290  00 


§184  56 
296  59 


116  50 
95  64 


50 


§742 
1,250 
160 
12 

3.533 
7,154 

2.091 


2.500 
1.007 


1,634  50 


3.750 
1-061 

'  72 

30 
45 

111 
145 


00  . 

57  . 
25  . 


§247  50 
416  66 
53  34 

4  16 

1.177  90 

2,384  94 

697  25 

5  99 
833  34 
335  88 

544  84 


1.250  00 
353  86 
24  09 

10  21 
15  00 

37  07 
48  33 


§247  50 
416  67 
53  33 

4  17 

1,177  90 
2,384  94 

697  25 

5  99 
833  33 
335  88 

544  83 


1.250  00 

'353  86 
24  08 

10  21 
15  00 

37  06 
48  34 


28 


TESTIMONY. 

Statement  of fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  accrued 


Date. 


Description  of  property. 


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  apprai>ed 
value,  or  fine. 


1862. 
April  30 

30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 

Hay  31 

31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 

June  30 
30 

30 
30 

30 
30 
30 
30 
30 

July  31 
31 

31 
31 
31 
31 

31 
31 
31 

31 

Aug.  31 
31 

31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 

Sept.  30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 

30 
30 
30 
30 

Oct.  31 

31 
31 
31 

31 


1  package,  marked  H.  Feldman,  containing  pipes   Appraised  value  

1  case,  C  B  and  B,  No.  124,  containing  calfskins  I  do   

1  case,  containing  photographs,  8tc,  marked  D  B— H,  No.  336  i  Judicial  condemnation.. 

7  harrels  rum,  marked  [72]  1  to  7  I  do  

3  packages  silk  and  worsted  ]   do   

1  case,  marked  U  H  B  J),  No.  1,  containing  watches  j  do  

7  quarter-casks  spirits,  marked  F  O  ,  do   

1  gold  watch  and  other  jewelry    do   

1  case  photographs,  marked  [P — L]  No.  30  I  do   

1  case  prints,  marked  E  L,  No.  517    \    do  

2-16  of  the  schooner  Mary  C.  Hopkins,  her  tackle,  &c  I  do  

Schooner  VV.  H.  Raritan".  her  tackle,  &c  I  do  

4-32  of  the  ship  John  Cottle,  her  tackle,  &e     do  

4-32  of  the  ship  Liberty,  her  tackle,  &.c  !  do  

j  of  the  ship  Claremont.  her  tackle,  &.c  I  do  

Part  of  the  ship  Sebastian  Cabot,  her  tackle,  Stc  I  do   

|  of  the  brig  Man-  McRae,  her  tackle,  &c  !  do  

1  package,  containing  silverware,  brushes,  and  silver-gilt  jewelry  '  Appraised  value  

1  package,  containing  gold  watches,  chains,  and  jewelry    do  

3  packages,  containing  plated  spoons,  &.c    [  do  

3  packages,  containing  metal  and  clay  pipes,  &c    do  

1  cask  prune  brandv,  G  K  159   .*  i  do   

6  cases  F  G  432,  433,  435,  436.  440,  442,  containing  metal,  &c  do  

2  cases  human  hair,  V  H  48  and  51   Judicial  condemnation.. 


18  cases  and  118  packages  marked  W  R,  containing  books,  newspapers, 
and  periodicals. 

A  quantity  of  books,  newspapers,  &c  

25  packages,  marked  Wilmer  k  Rogers,  containing  books,  newspapers,  &c. 


do 


.do. 

do.. 


2  packages,  watches  and  jewelry  do  

1  trunk,  containing  10,000  cigars     do  

1  package  photographic  lenses,  marked  Fred.  Lichtenfels  ,   do  

7  packages,  marked  J  B  H  460  a  486,  containing  hair,  artificial  flowers,  &c.  Appraised  value  

1  package  embroidery,  released  from  forfeiture   '  Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treason-. 

C  S  1  &  2,  two  casks,  containing  prune  brandy   Appraised  value  

4-16  of  the  schooner  Sunny  South,  her  tackle,  &c   Judicial  condemnation.. 

2-16  of  the  brig  General  Bailey,  her  tackle,  &c    '  do  

S  T  16  a  35,  20  casks  gin,  released  from  forfeiture  j  Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

I  S  P  42  43,  two  casks  of  plum  brandy  ;  Appraised  value  "  

1  package,  jewelry  do   

1  case  fancy  goods,  B  A  K  No.  2,  released  from  forfeiture  ..'  Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 

W  H  89  9  \  two  casks  kirchenwasser,  released  fromforfeiture   ...  do  

1  case,  marked  C.  Glutz  &.  Co.,  containing  watches   Judicial  condemnation.. 

1  case,  marked  H  &  F— J  H  No.  153,  containing  fancy  goods,  released    Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
from  forfeiture.  tary  of  Treasury. 

2  casks  whiskey,  marked  McMurchy,  Balston  &  Co   Judicial  condemnation.. 

1  trunk,  marked  S  VI ,  containing  pearls,  laces,  &c  j  do  

1  gold  hunter  watch  ■   do  

1  package  watches   j  do   

I  package,  marked  uh.  Sievi-"'  ....   do  

]  package,  containing  watches  and  jewelry   Appraised  value  

 do   do  do    do  

1  package,  containing  5  silver  watches  do  

200  cases  olive  oil,  AT  ;  16  packages  wine,  AT  ;  and  other  merchandise.  Judicial  condemnation.. 

1  package,  containing  silk  and  jewelry     Appraised  value  

1  trunk.  1  bag,  and  1  parcel,  containing  watches  j  do  

1  case,  containing  cloth,  &c    do   

1  bag  and  1  case,  containing  diamonds,  jewelry,  &c    do  

2  trunks  and  3  packages,  containing  ribbons,  embroideries,  8tc   do  

1  case  watches,  marked  C  G  275,  released  from  forfeiture   Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 

tary of  Treasury. 

1  case  fancy  goods,  H  B  3959   do  '.  

1  package  gold  jewelry     AppraisecKvalue  

1  package,  containing  diamond,  jewelry,  &c       do  

Sundry  illegal  importations  released  from  forfeiture   Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 

tary of  Treasury. 

1  trunk,  containing  cigars,  watches,  jewelry,  &c   Appraised  value  

1  trunk,  containing  silks,  laces,  watches,  Stc  !  do  

Jewelry   do  

1  cases,  marked  [A  C  R]  No.  134;  1  trunk,  marked  John  Russell,  &c,   do  

containing  shawls,  laces,  gloves,  &c. 
1  package,  containing  sewing  silk,  &c    do  


TESTIMONY. 

in  the  district  of  NewYork,  fye. — Continued. 


29 


Claimants. 


C.  Benkert  &  Son. , 

.Mr.  Stadner  

Charles  Spanseil... 
M.  Chappelier  . . . 

Louis  Brett  

G.  &.  J.  Klander  ... 
F.  Gombault  , 

A.  Benkard  &.  Bros 
J.  B.  Ilolderman. . 

Jos.  S perry  

John  Castro  , 

F.  Tomes  &  Co. .. 

Alberts  &  Co  

M.  Dubois. ! 

J.  Bumch  

L.  Sievi  

B.  Siegel  

Louis  rfchlesinger 
Mr.  Wurzer  

Jacob  Seligman. . . 

G.  Kaeppel  

Chs.  Baeder  

S.  Choen  

C.  Glatz  

Haeht  &  Co  

F.  Kreibmayer. .  . . 

H.  tiering  

Carlos  Torchi  

Madame  Mallet. .. 
By.  Karston  ...... 

Mr.  Opperheim  .  . . 


SI5  00 
762  29 
191  00 
194  25 
100  07 
542  25 
77  42 
77  15 
95  56 
73  70 
85  00 
150  1.0 
575  00 
400  00 
250  00 

250  00 
1, 125  00 

40  00 
65  00 
200  00 
140  00 
104  00 
1,350  00 
2,500  00 
2,803  44 

1,432  06 
764  50 
561  00 
125  00 
34  50 
4,572  00 
46  30 

102  00 
300  00 
500  00 
491  84 

70  00 
69  00 
87  00 

36  00 
1,070  00 
95  40 

188  76 
312  40 
100  00 
305  50 
193  50 
145  00 
113  00 

40  00 
2,118  00 

75  00 
325  00 

25  00 
475  00 
275  00 
317  25 

251  55 
1,187  91 

600  00 
851  45 

1.200  00 
'350  00 
203  00 
3,500  00 

53  00 


$81  61 
103  98 
93  96 
126  70 
77  42 
77  15 
95  56 
73  70 
S5  00 
150  00 
203  58 
237  70 
237  02 
184  95 
903  07 


102  60 

120  74 

100  78 

71  14 

118  39 

95  34 

34  50 


155  40 
190  75 


151  44 


100  13 

106  35 
92  85  ! 

105  92  I 
98  66  i 


96  67 


$7  SB 
381  14 
13  69 


185 

71 

81 

15 

6 

49 

32 

53 

1!0 

96 

20 

00 

32 

50 

100 

00 

70 

00 

52 

00 

675 

00 

1,198 

70 

1,341 

35 

665 

64 

346 

68 

221 

30 

2,286 

00 

23 

15 

51 

00 

72 

30 

154 

63 

245 

92 

35 

00 

34 

50 

43 

50 

18 

00 

459 

28 

47 

70 

103  03 


72  50 
56  50  , 
20  00  I 
1.010  66  1 
37  50 

162  50 
12  50 

237  50 

137  50  ; 

158  62 

125  78 
593  95 
300  00 
425  72 

600  00 
175  00 
101  50 
1,750  00  j 

26  50  ! 


$2  50 
127  05 

31  84  ; 

30  09 
2  03 


>2  50 
127  05 
31  83 
30  09 
2  04 
69  26 


61  90 

27  05 
2  16 
10  81 
36  99 
6  66 
10  81 
33  34 
23  33 
17  33 
225  00 
399  57 
447  11 

221  88 
115  56 
73  77 


762  00 

7  71  ; 

17  00 
24  10 

51  54  '• 
81  98  1 

11  66  i 

11  50  ' 

14  50  | 

6  00 
153  10 

15  90 

29  55  1 
34  34 
2  39 
33  26 
31  61 
24  16 

18  84 
6  66 

336  89 

12  50 
54  16 

4  17 
79  16 
45  84 

52  87  ; 

41  93  | 
197  98 
100  00 
141  91 


200  00 
58  34 
33  84 

583  34 

8  83 


61  91 

27  15 
2  16 
10  84 
3  j  99 
6  67 
10  83 
33  33 
23  33 
17  33 
225  00 
399  57 
447  12 

221  88 
115  56 
73  77 


762  00 

7  72  I 

17  00 
94  10 

51  54  : 
81  97  ; 

11  67 

11  50 

14  50  | 

6  00 
153  09 

15  90 

29  54 
34  34 
2  38 
33  26 
31  62 
24  17 

18  83 
6  67 

336  89 

12  50 
54  17 

4  17 
79  17 
45  83 

52  88 

41  92 
197  99 
100  00 
141  91 

200  00 
58  33 
33  83 

583  33 

8  83  I 


$2  50 
127  05 
31  83 
30  09 
2  04 
69  26 


61  90 

27  05 
2  17 
10  84 
3o  99 
6  67 
10  83 
33  33 
23  34 
17  34 
225  00 
399  56 
447  12 

221  88 
115  56 
73  77 


762  00 

7  72 

17  00 
24  10 

51  54 
81  97 

11  67 

11  50 

14  50 

6  00 
153  09 

15  90 

29  54 
34  34 
2  38 
33  27 
31  61 
24  17 

18  83 
6  67 

336  89 

12  50 
54  17 

4  16 
59  17 
45  83 

52  88 

41  92 
197  99 
100  00 
141  91 

200  00 
58  33 
33  83 

583  33 

8  84 


30 


TESTIMONY. 

Statement  of fines,  penalties)  and  forfeitures  accrued 


Date. 


Description  of  properly. 


186-2. 
Oct.  31 

m 

31 
31 
31 
3L 
31 

Nov.  30 


21  cases  nierchandi>e.  L  P — D  F,  &c.  containing  clocks,  cloths,  &c. 

I  case  merchandise,  A  M  No.  501.  

A  N  No.  3,  one  cask  prune  brandy...  

II  A  24,  25,  31,  32,  four  cases,  containing  artificial  flowers,  laces,  &c. 

20  cases  merchandise,  [N  D.J  Madame  Dieden,  claimant  

1  case,  D  F  1320,  containing  laces   

1-16  of  the  bark  Bounding  Billow,  her  tackle,  &.c  

Schr.  Wm.  E.  Alexander,  released  from  forfeiture  


4  casks  prune  brandy,  M  1  a  4  

77  boxes  cigars  and  1  package,  containing  23  packages  and  91  pieces  silk 
ribbon. 

3  boxes  cigars,  S  del  Pozo,  1  a  3  

1  package  jewelry   ••  

1  case  essential  oils,  OF10  

2-16  of  the  schooner  Mobile,  her  tackle,  &c  

2  cases,  R  A  23,  24,  containing  embroideries,  laces,  and  flowers  

3  cases  gloves,  [S  &  L]  741  a  743-,. and  60  other  cases,  variously  marked, 

8  cases  cotton  goods,  and  52  cases  other  goods  

1  Virginia  6  per  cent,  bond,  and  2  packages  gold  lace  

1-16  of  the  schooner  Virginia,  her  tackle,  &c  


Whether  on  judicial  con- 
demnation, voluntary 
payment  of  appraised 
value,  or  fine. 


Judicial  condemnation. 
Appraised  value. 
,do. 

 do  

Judicial  condemnation. 

Appraised  value  

Judicial  condemnation. 
Fine  imposed  by  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury. 
Judicial  condemnation. 
 do   


 do  

,  do  

 do  

 do   . 

Appraised  value  

Judicial  condemnation. 

 do  

 do  

 do  


Total 


RECAPIT 


December  1,  1858,  to  December  1,  1859 
December  1,  1859,  to  December  1.  I860 
December  1,  1860,  to  December  1,  1861 
December  1,  1861,  to  December  1,  1862 


Total 


> 


TESTIMONY.  31 


in  the  district  of  New  York,  fyc. — Continued. 


Claimants. 

Gross  proceeds. 

3 
a 

c 

V 

:= 
C 

S 
cd 
£ 

'= 

t3 

n 
P 
■~ 

2 

c; 
o 

s 
a 
- 
c 

> 

2 

1  Surveyor. 

.$10,000  00 
'500  00 
80  50 
650  00 
7,000  00 
2,000  00 
150  00 
825  60 

132  92 
379  37 

517  70 
437  25 
350  00 
1.125  00 
2,000  00 
11.973  00 
91013  00 
23  00 
140  00 

$215  50 

$4,892  25 
'250  00 
40  25 
325  00 
3.414  75 
1,000  00 

§1,630  75 
83  34 
13  41 
108  34 
1.138  25 
'333  34 

$1,630  75 
83  33 
13  42 
108  33 
1.138  25 
333  33 

$1,630  75 
83  33 
13  42 
108  33 
1.133  25 
333  33 

Madame  A.  Mallet  



170  50 

150  66 

625  60 

111  03 

1,499 

124  92 
114  16 
69  90 
227  34 



245  09 
200  69 
23  00 
140  00 

7  29 
22  09 

65  47 
53  85 
46  69 
149  61 
333  34 
1,954  65 
1,468  72 

7  30 
22  10 

65  46 
53  85 
46  68 
149  61 
333  33 
1.954  65 
1,468  72 

7  30 
22  10 

65  46 
53  85 
46  68 
149  61 
333  33 
1,954  65 
1,468  72 

132  57 

196  39 
161  54 
140  05 
448  83 
1.000  00 
5,863  96 
4^406  15 

$66  29 

134,419  27 

7, 149  22 

63,828  71 

66  29 

21,125  04 

21, 125  00 

21,125  01 

ULATION. 

139,779  37 
96,570  69 
58,222  79 

134,419  27 

6,180  32  l   67,491  25 
6.423  93      44,733  57 
4,3C9  35  1   261641  32 
7,149  22  j    63,828  71 

98  64 
695  46 
1.321  31 
'  66  29 

22.P03  07 
14,906  01 
8.650  30 
21,125  04 

22,003  03 
14,905  86 
8^650  26 
21,125  00 

22.003  06 
14: 905  86 
8.650  25 
21,125  01 

428,992  12 

: 

24,062  82  |  202,694  85 

2,181  70 

66,684  42 

66,684  15 

66,684  IS 

32 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Does  either  the  collector,  naval  officer,  or  surveyor  get 
any  pay  or  emolument  by  virtue  of  their  offices,  except  it  comes 
through  your  hands  as  auditor  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  pay  either  the  naval  officer  or  surveyor.  The 
cashier  collects  the  fees  and  pays  them  their  proportion  of  the  fees, 
out  of  which  they  retain  their  salaries  and  account  to  the  government 
for  the  surplus. 

Question.  Then  no  fees  come  into  your  hands? 

Answer.  None.  The  fees  are  collected  by  the  cashier,  but  they  are 
subject  to  my  draft,  and  I  draw  against  the  collector's  share.  The 
remainder  is  applied  to  office  expenses — the  payment  of  the  salaries 
of  officers  and  clerks;  and  then  if  there  is  any  surplus  it  is  paid  into 
the  United  States  Treasury. 

Question.  Then  you  know  what  is  paid  to  each  of  these  officers  ? 

Answer.  I  have  the  cashier's  book  where  he  credits  the  whole 
amount  of  fees  received. 

Question.  What  has  been  the  aggregate  of  the  fees  (not  forfeitures 
or  penalties)  which  have  accrued  to  the  custom-house  from  all  sources 
during  each  of  the  four  years  preceding  the  first  of  December,  18G2  ? 

Answer.  I  will  prepare  and  furnish  a  statement  showing  the 
amount. 

The  statement  subsequently  furnished  is  as  follows  : 


TESTIMONY. 


i 

$1,456  91 
1  356  02 
1,063  55 
1,479  63 
1,460  13 

1,523  38 

1.767  68 
1,572  94 
1,821  96 

1.768  91 
1,389  02 

18,416  96 

s 

$4,128  80 
4, 179  58 
4,036  95 
5,261  85 
4,852  13 
5,199  23 
4,808  52 
6,256  22 
5,398  63 
5,879  35 
5,387  72 
4,407  63 

59,796  61 

$228,674  03 

% 
1 

s 

$1,214  54 
1  045  42 
1, 049  43 
1,295  24 
1,574  23 
1 , 990  80 
1,372  47 
1,468  78 
1,045  26 
1,141  63 
1,265  38 
1,359  27 

I 
« 

1 

j 

53,017  37 

$160,888  12 

$7,660  72 
9,463  07 
9,343  37 
9,433  93 
7,631  61 
6,383  42 
5,422  3L 
7,573  98 
7,016  36 
6,743  52 
7,653  72 
7,720  29 

92,048  30 

$1,195  82 
947  69 
840  70 
1,537  72 
1,556  14 
1,700  53 
1,672  30 
1,518  66 
1,369  73 
1,254  72 
1,575  04 
1,248  63 

16,417  68 

( 

j 

$5,643  42 
5,860  78 
5,683  30 
7,632  83 
5,604  20 
6,293  10 
5,721  88 
6,830  93 
7,855  08 
5,906  85 
6,234  98 
5,489  22 

74,756  57 

3 
1 

$10,773  32 
12,590  82 
11,491  68 
13,741  40 
10,051  75 
10,670  24 
10,634  66 
14,672  36 
15,581  57 
11,357  01 
10,901  62 
8,747  90 

n 

i 

$1,069  68 
838  94 
851  41 
1,485  05 
1,508  22 
1 , 845  23 
1,766  43 
1,293  66 
1,361  79 
1,234  79 
9-24  25 
1,218  38 

15,397  83 

1 

i 

69,367  71 

1 
i 

IS8ISS3i§S5C 

136,323  02 

1 

Part  iii  3 


34 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Does  the  collector  receive  any  salary  or  emolument  by 
virtue  of  his  office  which  does  not  come  through  your  hands  ? 

Answer.  He  receives  a  commission  on  certain  fees  collected  by  the 
cashier  for  the  State  officers. 

Question.  Does  he  receive  anything  from  any  other  source  except 
that? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Question.  Then,  with  that  exception,  everything  he  receives  from 
the  government  by  virtue  of  his  office  comes  through  your  hands  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  there  been  anv  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  re- 
ceived under  the  acts  of  July  13,"l861,  and  May  20,  1862  ? 
Answer.  There  have  been  some. 
Question.  Will  you  furnish  a  statement  of  the  same  ? 
Answer.  I  will. 

The  statement  was  subsequently  furnished  as  follows  : 


TESTIMONY. 


co 

©  O  t**  t4^'  ci  o  i 
OiOHOOOrtiQ 

CO 

«o 

CM 
</> 

CO  N        H  CO  N  O 

Oi 
1— 1 

o 

Ci 
CO 

O 

00 

OOHMfflHiO 

«o 

o 

o 

•I90IJJO  l^A^SJ 

co 

CO  CO        i-i  00  CM  O 

Ci 
i— 1 

© 

Ci 
CO 

© 

oo 

o  o  a  ■*  r.  o  ■* 

Ci  O  r-H  00  Oi  —1  O 

CO 

co 

CO  <M        r-i  CO  CO  O 

Oi 

i— i 

068 

O 

Ci 

H  i/j  Ci  fO  to  C  CO 

t~  — i  ^  o  oi  co  co 

CO 
GO 

o 

U3 

TOWS  P9ttnn. 

00 

r— 

O  H  O  N  O  N 

00  00       CO  ^  t~  o 

00 

1,  171 

*S3[I3I0 


CO  ©  ©  Ci  Ci  <— I  00  CC  Ci  M  N  N  00 


©©©©©©©©©Ci©©  > 

I 


x  ^  c  >:      is  co  ^  co  x  n  c;  m 

X         t-l  i-l  i-(  f-l  i-H  00  rl  .-I 


©i0©i0©©©0©©©0© 
OOOOt^OiOiOCNIOOOCO'* 
CO  MCTfNNHKOHHH 


II 

g  J  -  o 


COC    -  1—1  c       ^  o  w 

J  8  J  ■=".£■  J  -=".ici  .-r- 

o  3  u  —  —  _  —  _t  o  !ir 
x  x  x  x  rxj  x  x  —  x  — 


pq  a  _ 

c  o 
o  o 


co  co  co  co  co  co  co  co  co  co  co  co  co 
ooaoaoaocoaoooaoaoaoaoaoao 

57  p<  A  -  n  -  ce  -  —  —  —  □  - 


3G 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Do  you  know,  or  have  you  reason  to  believe,  that  any 
persons  in  the  employ  of  the  government  in  the  custom-house  have 
received  money  over  and  beyond  that  which  is  their  legal  compensa- 
tion ? 

Answer.  1  have  reason  to  believe  it  has  been  done  on  several  occa- 
sions. I  know  of  one  case  where  a  clerk  was  removed  in  consequence 
of  doing  so. 

Question.  In  what  department  of  the  custom-house  was  he? 

Answer.  In  the  record  office. 

Question.  What  extra  amount  did  he  receive  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Have  you  reason  to  believe  there  are  other  such  cases  ? 
Answer.  I  have  heard  of  but  I  do  not  know  positively  as  to  any 
other  cases. 

Question.  Can  you  furnish  from  your  office  a  statement  of  the  im- 
ports (in  value)  into  this  port  during  the  four  years  preceding  the 
first  of  December,  1862  ? 

Answer.  I  can. 

The  following  is  the  statement  subsequently  furnished  by  the  wit- 
ness : 

Imports  at  the  port  of  New  Yor7c  during  the  four  years  preceding  December  1, 

18(52. 


Month. 


185S-'59. 


1859-  60. 


1860-  61. 


December  ... 

January   

February  . .. 

March  

April  . 

May  

June  

July  

August  

September .. 

October  

November  .. 

Total 


$13,344,625 
19,447,962 
18,848,370 
20,820,456 
22,425,619 
23,552,646 
24,069,821 
27,286, 120 
24,649,591 
16,  643,  585 
13,617,946 
14,895,002 


239,601,743 


$18,908,398 
21,756,273 
19,356,379 
23,580, 126 
16,971,358 
16,893,  151 
19, 160,789 
24,881,649 
25,938,854 
16,260,450 
16,787,242 
15,421, 156 


235,915,825 


$21,253,033 
26,827,411 
16,341,707 
18,204,381 
14,886,393 
14,949,281 
12,  649,733 
14,938,851 
8,885,928 
7,305,461 
8,523,741 
9,639,012 


174,404,932 


New  York,  December  18,  1862. 

William  D.  Robinson  sworn  : 
Question.  State  your  official  position. 

Answer.  I  am  known  as  the  cashier  of  the  custom-house.  I  am  at 
the  head  of  the  cashier's  department.  My  duties  are  to  receive  the 
duties  upon  imports,  withdrawals,  fees,  &c. 

Question.  In  general  terms,  what  is  the  character  of  the  fees  which 
are  received  ? 

Answer.  Fees  for  entering  and  clearing  vessels,  and  for  documents 
needed  by  the  merchants. 


TESTIMONY. 


37 


Question.  State,  in  general  terms,  the  manner  in  which  the  fees  re- 
ceived by  your  office  are  disposed  of  ? 

Answer.  They  are  divided  between  the  collector,  naval  officer,  and 
surveyor. 

Question.  In  what  manner? 

Answer.  It  would  be  difficult  to  explain  it  to  you  without  showing 
you  an  account  and  monthly  return.  Some  are  divided  between  the 
collector  and  naval  officer  only;  some  between  the  three  officers,  &c. 

Question.  The  amount  to  be  retained  by  each  of  these  officers  is 
limited  by  law  ? 

Answer.  The  fees  are  intended  to  go  as  far  as  they  will  to  pay  the 
salaries  of  employes. 

Question.  Suppose  they  exceed  in  amount  the  salaries  ? 

Answer.  I  presume  the  surplus  is  paid  into  the  United  States 
treasury.  Since  I  have  been  in  office  they  never  have  exceeded  the 
amount  of  the  salaries  in  the  collector's  department;  but  in  the  naval 
officer's  department  I  think  they  have.  I  do  not  know  as  to  the  sur- 
veyor's office. 

Question.  You  pay  these  fees  over  monthly  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  pay  to  each  one  of  these  officers  his  amount? 
Answer.  I  pay  the  naval  officer  and  surveyor  their  proportion,  and 
the  auditor  draws  for  the  collector. 

Question.  But  all  the  fees  are  applied  in  one  of  these  ways? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  The  collector,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  receives  a  salary  of 
$6,000,  one  sixth  part  of  the  fines  and  forfeitures,  and  certain  com- 
missions, not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate  $400.  Now,  do  you  know 
of  any  other  sums  received  by  the  collector  by  way  of  compensation, 
and  of  any  growing  out  of  commissions  on  fees  coming  to  officers  of 
the  State  of  New  York?    State  how,  and  to  what  extent. 

^  Answer.  In  regard  to  commissions  on  State  fees,  I  will  say  that 
there  are  three  kinds  of  State  fees  collected  in  my  department  by  the 
authority  of  the  collector;  the  harbor-master's  fees,  the  health  officer's 
fees,  and  the  Seaman's  Eetreat  hospital  fees.  Those  I  collect  every 
day  as  the  vessels  enter. 

Question.  They  are  charges  against  every  vessel,  and  they  are  col- 
lected by  you  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  as  agent  of  the  collector. 

Question.  What  commission  does  the  collector  of  this  port  receive 
for  the  collection  of  those  fees  for  the  State  officers  ? 

Answer.  Five  per  cent,  from  the  harbor-master,  three  per  cent, 
from  the  health  officers,  and  two  and  a  half  from  the  seaman's 
hospital. 

Question.  What  would  be  the  average  value  of  those  commissions? 

Answer.  I  should  think  about  three  hundred  dollars  a  month. 

Question.  As  treasurer  of  the  custom-house,  and  as  the  head  of 
that  department,  you  collect  for  the  government  of  the  United  States 
certain  fees  from  each  vessel? 

Answer.-  Yes,  sir. 


38 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  And  at  the  same  time  you  collect  these  other  fees  going 
to  the  officers  of  the  State  of  New  York? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  the  collector,  as  compensation  for  himself,  receives 
a  commission  upon  those  collections  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  yourself  receive  any  compensation  beyond  your 
regular  salary  ? 
Answer.  None. 

Question.  How  is  your  salary  paid  ? 
Answer.  Monthly,  by  the  auditor. 
Question.  How  much  is  it? 
Answer.  $250  a  month. 

Question.  You  receive  no  additional  compensation  ? 
Answer.  None  whatever. 

Question.  Has  the  collecting  of  these  fees  for  the  benefit  of  New 
York  State  been  practiced  for  a  good  many  years  ? 

Answer.  As  long  as  I  can  remember. 

Question.  And  commissions  paid  the  same  as  now  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  My  impression  is  that  the  cashier  and  assistant 
cashier  formerly  received  these  commissions.  I  was  appointed  by  Mr. 
Curtis,  and  I  was  told  then  that  Curtis  was  the  first  collector  that  ever 
collected  these  fees. 

Question.  Since  that  time  the  collector  has  uniformly  received  those 
fees  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Amounting  to  about  $3,600  a  year? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  the  money  so  received  is  in  any 
way  accounted  for  by  the  collector  to  the  government,  or  are  they 
simply  regarded  as  a  compensation  from  the  officers  of  the  State  of 
New  York  for  the  services  performed  ? 

Answer.  It  is  simply  a  compensation  from  those  particular  officers, 
and  the  general  government  has  no  connexion  with  the  matter. 

Question.  And  therefore  he  makes  no  report  of  the  money  so  re- 
ceived ? 

Answer.  None  whatever. 

Question.  Do  you  know  any  other  officers  of  the  government  in  any 
way  connected  with  the  custom-house  who  receive,  either  in  fees  or 
otherwise,  a  compensation  beyond  that  which  is  provided  by  law  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  might  say  that  there  is  a  clerk  in  my  office 
who  gets  a  trifle,  say  $250  a  year,  for  making  out  a  list  of  vessels  for 
those  interested  in  the  hospital  fees. 

Question.  Do  you  know,  or  have  you  reason  to  believe,  that  any 
men  in  the  employ  of  the  government  in  the  custom-house  have  taken 
or  received  more  money  than  their  legitimate  salary  ? 

Answer.  I  never  heard  of  any  case  of  that  kind. 

Question.  Have  you  not  understood  that  many  persons  inside  of 
the  custom-house  were  taking  more  money  than  they  were  entitled  to  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir ;  except  that  I  have  heard  that  some  clerks  who 
take  work  home,  and  worked  all  night,  receive  compensation  from 
the  merchants  interested. 


TESTIMONY 


39 


New  York,  December  19,  1862. 

Horatio  F.  Averill  sworn : 
Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
Answer.  In  New  York. 
Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 
Answer.  I  am  a  lawyer. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  had  any  busiuess  pertaining  to  the  custom- 
house ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  has  been  the  character  of  that  business? 

Answer.  To  settle  or  arrange  in  regard  to  the  seizure  of  some  goods 
by  the  custom-house  officers. 

Question.  What  cases  have  you  arranged  ? 

Answer.  One  in  which  0.  Paturel  &  Co.  were  interested. 

Question.  What  were  the  circumstances  of  that  seizure? 

Answer.  Paturel  came  to  me  and  said  the  custom-house  officers  had 
taken  possession  of  his  store,  and  seized  his  papers  and  taken  them  to 
the  custom-house,  and  that  they  had  threatened  to  arrest  him. 

Question.  For  what  had  they  made  the  seizure? 

Answer.  For  false  invoices,  as  they  alleged. 

Question.  State  what  you  did  in  the  matter  ? 

Answer.  I  went  to  see  Mr.  Andrews,  the  surveyor,  with  whom  I 
was  personally  acquainted,  and  he  sent  me  to  Mr.  Dennison,  the  naval 
officer,  and  Mr.  Dennison  sent  me  to  Mr.  Isaacs. 

Question.  Who  is  Mr.  Isaacs  ? 

Answer.  He  is  a  sort  of  detective. 

Question.  Is  he  connected  with  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  did  you  do  ? 

Answer.  I  saw  Isaacs  and  talked  about  the  matter,  and  he  said  that 
Paturel  should  pay  about  $5,000  ;  that  he  had  ascertained  that  he  had 
a  large  amount  of  money  in  the  bank.  I  went  to  see  Dennison,  and 
he  thought  Paturel  should  pay  about  $2,000. 

Question.  For  what  purpose  was  this  to  be  paid  ? 

Answer.  It  was  to  be  paid  in  settlement  of  the  matter,  so  that  he 
could  get  his  goods  and  resume  possession  of  the  store. 

Question.  Was  it  paid? 

Answer.  Not  that  amount. 

Question.  What  amount  was  paid,  and  to  whom? 
Answer.  Four  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  was  paid. 
Question.  State  the  particulars  in  regard  to  your  negotiation  about 
payment? 

Answer.  I  saw  Mr.  Isaacs,  who  is  a  Jew.  His  figures  were  very 
large.  He  pretended  to  be  a  great  friend  of  Paturel,  yet  I  saw  he 
was  not.  He  advised  me  to  employ  Mr.  Dunning  as  counsel.  I  saw 
Dunning,  and  he  came  up  to  the  custom-house,  but  we  saw  nobody 
there  when  we  came  up.  I  went  back  to  Mr.  Andrews,  and  I  told 
him  that  Mr.  Isaacs  and  myself  did  not  belong  to  the  "  same  church," 
and  hence  I  did  not  like  to  negotiate  with  him;  that  I  did  not  think 
he  was  the  right  sort  of  a  man.    He  said  he  would  see  if  he  could 


40 


TESTIMONY. 


arrange  it.  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  if  I  employed  Dunning  it 
would  be  more  expensive.  I  also  heard  from  outside  parties  that 
Isaacs  was  in  the  habit  of  recommending  certain  lawyers  to  be  em- 
ployed. I  then  called  upon  Dunning,  and  told  him  I  did  not  wish 
him  to  act  further  in  the  matter,  unless  it  terminated  in  a  suit,  in 
which  case  I  might  employ  him  as  counsel.  I  sent  him  $10  for  his 
services.  I  finally  arranged  with  Dennison  that  the  amount  should 
he  (450.  Paturel  did  not  have  the  ready  means,  and  I  paid,  I  think, 
$250.  I  think  I  gave  Franklin,  a  check  for  $250  the  first  day.  The 
matter  run  on  a  day  or  two,  and  Paturel  sent  me  $100.  Finally, 
within  two  or  three  days  the  whole  $450  was  paid,  and  when  the  last- 
payment  was  made,  Franklin  went  round  and  got  it  turned  into  gold, 
and  I  went  down  stairs  in  the  custom-house  and  paid  it  to  a  man 
there. 

Question.  Under  whose  direction  did  you  go  to  a  certain  man  down 
stairs  ? 

Answer.  By  the  direction  of  Mr.  Franklin.  I  went  down  stairs, 
and  the  young  man  appeared  to  understand  it.  I  got  a  permit  for 
the  goods. 

Question.  Did  you  take  any  receipt? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  Did  anybody  take  a  receipt? 
Answer.  Franklin  took  a  stipulation. 
Question.  What  was  it  ? 
Answer.  Not  to  sue  anybody  for  damages. 
Question.  Were  those  goods  ever  appraised  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  1  considered  the  amount  paid  as  the  ap- 
praisement. 

Question.  By  whom  was  it  considered  an  appraisement? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  stated  that  it  would  be  necessary 
to  have  the  goods  condemned  and  appraised  at  a  certain  amount,  and 
that  I  should  consent  to  an  appraisement  at  such  an  amount  as  I 
should  agree  to  pay,  and  that  was  to  be  considered  as  a  nominal 
appraisement. 

Question.  What  was  the  reason  of  your  giving  such  a  stipulation? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  They  asked  for  it,  and  I  thought  perhaps 
it  was  natural  that  they  should,  because  when  any  man's  property  is 
seized  he  has  a  right,  of  course,  to  turn  round  and  sue  the  parties  for  a 
trespass.  I  thought  it  proper  in  them,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned, 
to  require  something  of  that  kind  from  parties.  It  would,  of  course, 
exempt  the.n  from  being  liable  to  suits  for  damages. 

Question.  Was  this  in  the  nature  of  a  consent,  or  was  it  a  settle- 
ment to  prevent  the  matter  going  into  court  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  they  said  at  that  time  it  would  be  necessary, 
if  I  consented  to  have  it  go  into  court.  I  was  not  familiar  with  the 
course  of  proceeding.  I  expected,  in  the  first  instance,  that  it  would 
go  into  court;  and  when  they  expressed  a  willingness  that  it  should 
not,  I  was  willing  to  consent,  and  so  was  Paturel.  I  signed  the  con- 
sent, "Paturel,  by  attorney." 

Question.  Was  there  any  examination  of  the  invoice  after  the 
seizure  to  ascertain  the  fact  whether  there  was  an  actual  false  invoice? 


TESTIMONY 


41 


Answer.  I  do  not  know  personally  whether  there  was  or  not.  It 
was  one  of  those  things  which,  I  learned  to  my  satisfaction,  were 
done  every  day,  that  is,  that  they  compromised  with  parties  for 
such  an  amount.  Tn  the  first  place ,  they  showed  to  me  some  papers 
which  satisfied  me3  without  minute  examination,  that  there  had  been 
some  mistake.  Paturel  explained  to  me  that  he  had  had  a  partner 
who  was  no  longer  with  him,  and  who  was  in  the  habit  of  entering 
goods  at  the  custom-house.  He  knew  nothing  about  the  matter,  and 
when  his  partner  left  he  followed  along  in  the  track  of  his  partner. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  this  sum  of  $450  was  the  differ- 
ence between  the  invoice  and  what  you  consented  to  call  the  actual 
appraisement  of  the  goods  ? 

Answer.  The  difference  in  that  particular  transaction  was  not  so 
much  as  $450.  The  difference  between  what  they  claimed  he  should 
have  paid,  and  what  he  did  pay,  was  not  so  much  as  $450. 

Question.  Then  why  did  you  consent  to  pay  more? 

Answer.  They  have  the  right  not  only  to  condemn  the  goods — the 
goods  amounted  to  several  hundred  dollars  more  than  $450 — but  they 
have  the  right,  if  they  succeed,  to  triple  damages  ;  and  besides  that, 
they  have  the  right  to  arrest  the  party.  Paturel's  family  was  sick, 
and  his  desire  was  that  I  should  settle  at  some  figure  or  other  rather 
than  have  the  expense  of  litigation,  and  perhaps  the  chance  of  getting 
beat  in  the  end.  He  necessarily  would  have  to  send  to  Paris  for  evi- 
dence, and  it  would  cost  him  at  least  $450  even  if  he  were  not  guilty. 

Question.  Were  the  goods  themselves  worth  more  than  $450. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  the  difference  between  what  he  actually  paid  and 
what  the  law  required  him  to  pay  was  not  $450  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  What  he  paid  over  and  above  the  lawful  duties  he  paid 
to  make  his  peace  ? 

Answer.  They  claimed  that  there  were  other  transactions  which 
were  included  in  the  arrangement,  and  which  had  no  reference  to 
these  goods. 

Question.  Did  they  give  you  to  understand  that  if  this  matter  was 
settled  upon  those  terms,  the  other  transactions  would  be  passed 
over  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  He  made  a  general  peace  with  the  custom-house? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  the  understanding. 

Question.  What  those  other  matters  were  you  do  not  know? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  It  was  alleged  by  Isaacs,  who  pretended  to  be 
a  great  friend  of  Paturel,  that  great  frauds  had  been  committed  by 
the  firm,  but  I  thought  it  was  only  an  argument  of  his. 

Question.  Did  you  consider  the  settlement  an  onerous  one  for  your 
client? 

Answer.  I  knew  he  was  a  man  of  not  much  means,  and  probably 
was  worth  not  to  exceed  from  two  to  five  thousand  dollars,  and  that 
he  was  not  a  man  who  could  afford  to  pay  $450.  The  reason  why  I 
came  to  that  conclusion  was  that  I  saw  his  bank  book  ;  saw  what  his 
deposits  were.    I  concluded  that  would  show  what  his  means  were. 


42 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  You  were  satisfied  yourself  that  there  had  been  a  mis- 
take, whether  intentional  or  otherwise? 

Answer.  I  thought  so  ;  and  my  client  thought  the  trouble  was  the 
result  of  a  conspiracy  of  another  man  engaged  in  the  same  business 
with  himself. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  any  other  similar  cases  ? 
Answer.  I  had  another  case  which  was  somewhat  similar. 
Question.  State  the  circumstances  of  that  case,  with  the  names  of 
the  parties. 

Answer.  A  Mr.  Sabatine  was  the  other  party.  He  was  an  Italian, 
and  an  artificial  flower  manufacturer.  He  does  not  speak  a  word  of 
English,  and  he  said  that  while  on  board  the  vessel  he  had  some 
tools  and  some  materials  in  the  top  of  his  trunk.  During  the  passage 
over  he  put  them  in  his  berth,  and  when  he  arrived  here  he  sent  for 
his  custom-house  broker.  The  broker  did  not  corae  down,  and  he  did 
not  know  what  to  do.  He  tried  to  speak  to  some  officers,  but  they 
could  not  understand  him,  nor  he  them,  and  so  he  brought  the  arti- 
cles along  with  him,  saying  that  he  was  going  to  his  broker.  They 
arrested  him  and  found  the  things  on  him. 

Question.  What  articles  were  they  ? 

Answer.  Dutiable  goods.  They  took  the  articles  away,  and  he  had 
on  board  some  amount  of  merchandise  which,  I  think,  had  been 
properly  entered.  But  they  seized  those  things,  and  until  the  other 
matter  was  arranged  they  would  not  allow  him  to  take  them. 

Question.  They  had  the  right  to  seize  everything? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  went  down  and  saw  Mr.  Dennison.  I  was 
then  better  acquainted  with  him,  as  he  had  boarded  at  the  same  place 
I  did.  He  sent  me  to  Mr.  Stanton.  I  saw  this  Isaacs,  too.  I  saw 
Mr.  Stanton  and  Mr.  Andrews,  and  I  finally  paid  $275  as  a  compro- 
mise. I  thought  that  was  quite  hard,  as  my  client  was  a  man  of 
means,  and  I  did  not  gather  from  him  that  he  intended  to  do  anything 
wrong. 

Question.  Why  did  he  undertake  to  carry  those  things  off  the 
vessel ? 

Answer.  With  whom  could  he  leave  them  ?  He  could  not  tell  any- 
body what  he  wanted  to  do,  and  to  leave  the  articles  in  an  open  berth 
would  subject  them  to  be  lost. 

Question.  The  whole  of  this  transaction,  then,  was  this:  that  this 
man  was  caught  in  the  act  of  attempting  to  smuggle,  and  they  seized 
his  goods,  and  he  finally  compromised  by  paying  §275  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Where  did  that  money  go  to  ? 
Answer.  I  think  I  paid  it  to  Mr.  Stanton. 

Question.  You  believed  the  man  did  not  intend  to  smuggle,  and 
they  did  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  they  caught  him  in  the  act,  which  is  the 
highest  evidence. 

Question.  When  did  that  matter  of  Paturel  happen? 
Answer.  In  October,  1861. 

Question.  What  was  the  charge  against  Paturel? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  any  written  charge,  but  I  understood  the 


TESTIMONY. 


43 


charge  was  that  he  passed  goods  through  the  custom-house  on  a  false 
invoice. 

Question.  In  what  respect  were  the  invoices  false? 

Answer.  It  was  alleged  that  the  goods  were  undervalued. 

Question.  What  was  your  first  connexion  with  that  matter,  and 
how  did  you  first  learn  about  it  ? 

Answer.  Through  a  gentleman  connected  with  the  police  depart- 
ment of  this  city,  a  very  particular  friend  of  mine,  who  comes  to  me 
for  legal  advice  himself,  and  sends  me  clients  whenever  he  can  ? 

Question.  Did  Paturel  come  to  you? 

Answer.  He  did. 

Question.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Answer.  That  he  had  got  to  go  down  to  the  surveyor's  office  the 
next  day. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  in  what  manner  the  citation  of  ser- 
vice was  made  upon  him? 
Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  At  that  time  had  his  goods  been  seized? 
Answer.  He  said  they  had. 

Question.  Did  you  inquire  for  the  warrant  of  seizure,  or  if  there 
was  any  written  authority  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  see  the  custom-house  men  who  had  charge  of 
the  goods  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  think  they  said  one  Brown  had  charge  of  the 
goods. 

Question.  Did  you  ask  any  one  by  what  authority  they  acted  in 
making  the  seizure? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  and  they  told  me  the  circumstances  and  the 
cause  of  the  seizure. 

Question.  You  say  you  went  to  Andrews's? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Question.  To  whom  did  he  refer  you? 

Answer.  To  Dennison  &  Isaacs.    I  went  to  Dennison,  and  he  said 
he  did  not  know  anything  about  it,  and  then  I  went  to  Isaacs. 
Question.  What  did  Isaacs  say  ? 

Answer.  He  said  it  was  a  very  severe  case,  or  something  of  that 
kind,  but  that  the  thing  could  be  arranged.  He  said  I  had  better  go 
down  and  see  some  other  persons,  naming  four  or  five  others,  Denni- 
son among  them. 

Question.  Who  besides  Dennison  did  he  name? 

Answer.  I  think  one  was  James  B.  Craig. 

Question.  Did  Isaacs  say  there  would  have  to  be  a  condemnation  of 
the  goods? 

Answer.  He  did  not  at  first. 
Question.  Did  he  afterwards  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Franklin  said  that  I  took  it  for  granted  that  that 
would  have  to  be  the  case. 


44 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Did  you  ask  them  if  there  was  any  necessity  of  going 
through  all  this  sort  of  formality  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Question.  What  did  they  say  ? 

Answer.  They  said  at  first  that  there  was.  I  asked  them  that  be- 
cause there  were  perishable  articles,  and  they  would  be  lost  if  the 
matter  was  not  immediately  attended  to. 

Question.  Was  there  any  proposition  made  by  either  of  those  parties 
as  to  what  the  government  would  take  ? 

Answer.  I  have  already  stated  that  Isaacs  said  that  Paturel  should 
pay  §5,000,  but  that  Dennison  thought  it  should  not  be  more  than 
$2,000.  _ 

Question.  Did  you  go  to  see  Dunning? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Isaacs  seem  anxious  that  you  should  employ  some 
one  of  those  men  ? 

Answer.  I  thought  he  did  ;  but  it  occurred  to  me  when  I  got  a  little 
familiar  with  the  matter  that  I  had  better  not — that  I  should  get 
along  better  without  counsel  than  with  it. 

Question.  I  understand  that  you  went  to  see  Dennison  also  about 
this  matter. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  kind  of  goods  had  they  in  their  charge  ? 

Answer.  Principally  balloons. 

Question.  Where  were  those  goods  at  the  time? 

Answer.  The  recent  importations  were  in  the  custom-house. 

Question.  Where  were  the  others? 

Answer.  In  PaturePs  store. 

Question.  Had  the  officers  possession  of  them  all? 
Answer.  They  had  taken  possession  of  his  store. 
Question.  Were  the  goods  ever,  in  fact,  appraised? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  The  amount  at  which  they  were  appraised  was  arbitrary, 
and  not  their  real  value  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  If  there  was  to  be  no  real  appraisement  of  the  goods, 
what  was  the  necessity  of  talking  about  an  appraisal  at  all  ? 

Answer.  If  there  had  been  a  prosecution,  it  would  have  been  ne- 
cessary to  have  an  appraisal.  A  consent  to  an  appraisal  at  a  certain 
sum  obviates  the  necessity  of  a  real  appraisal.  According  to  the  prac- 
tice in  this  case,  the  attorney  for  the  claimant  and  the  United  States 
district  attorney  may  consent  to  an  appraisement,  and  that  becomes 
a  matter  of  record,  and  part  of  the  proceedings  of  the  court. 

Question.  Did  you  ask  for  a  receipt  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  did. 

Question.  Whom  did  you  ask? 

Answer.  Mr.  Franklin,  I  think. 

Question.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Answer.  He  said  it  was  not  necessary.    The  only  object  I  had  in 
asking  for  a  receipt  was  to  show  my  client  what  I  paid. 
Question.  Did  they  take  PaturePs  book  at  the  same  time? 
Answer.  They  took  everything. 


TESTIMONY. 


45 


Question.  At  what  time  were  both  of  these  transactions  adjusted? 
Answer.  During  the  fall  of  1861  and  the  summer  of  1862. 
Question.  Was  the  money  in  both  instances  paid  to  Mr.  Stanton 
Answer.  No,  sir.    I  do  not  think  Stanton  was  in  the  custom-house 
in  1861 

Question.  The  money  was  paid  to  the  law  officer  of  the  custom- 
house ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Stanton's  position  is. 
Question.  Both  the  sums  were  paid  to  the  person  occupying  that 
position  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  The  first  sum  was  paid  to  Franklin  in  the  first 
instance,  in  partial  payment.  When  it  was  all  paid,  I  think  I  took 
it  down  stairs  to  a  clerk.  In  the  last  case  I  think  the  money  was 
paid  to  Mr.  Stanton,  or  some  one  in  his  office. 

Question.  Who  is  Franklin  ? 

Answer.  A  deputy  naval  officer. 

Question.  You  paid  it  to  a  clerk.    In  what  bureau  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  paid  the  first  in  the  invoice  room,  but  I  am  not 
sure. 

Question.  Was  it  paid  into  the  same  bureau  to  which  Stanton  is 
now  attached? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  In  the  first  instance,  the  final  arrange- 
ment was  consummated  with  Mr.  Dennison,  and  in  the  last  instance 
with  Dennison  and  Stanton,  the  law  officer. 


New  York,  December  19,  1862. 

Henry  A.  Cargill  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 
Answer.  In  New  York. 
Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  I  have  been  deputy  collector.    I  am  in  no  business  now. 
Question.  How  long  were  you  deputy  collector? 
Answer.  I  was  first  deputy  collector  under  C.  W.  Lawrence  four 
years. 

Question.  In  what  department? 

Answer.  There  were  no  departments  at  that  time. 

Question.  What  particular  business  had  you  charge  of? 

Answer.  I  was  engaged  in  everything  that  came  up. 

Question.  Had  you  anything  to  do  with  seizures? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  during  that  time. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  had  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  was  the  chief  clerk  of  the  invoice  department 
under  Schell,  and  remained  there  six  or  eight  months,  and  from  about 
the  time  that  Craig  left  I  acted  as  seizure  clerk  up  to  April,  1859. 

Question.  State  the  mode  of  making  seizures  in  the  custom-house 
during  the  time  you  were  in  that  department. 

Answer.  I  know  little  about  the  matter  of  making  seizures  from 
passengers.    In  regard  to  seizures  for  false  invoices,  the  detection 


4G 


TESTIMONY. 


was  frequently  made  from  invoices  which  came  before  the  deputy  col- 
lector. If  the  price  was  raised  over  ten  per  cent,  we  would  think 
something  was  wrong,  and  we  would  collect  together  the  invoices  of 
the  man  for  eight  or  twelve  months  back,  and  examine  them,  to  ascer- 
tain whether  they  were  correct  invoices,  or  whether  there  was  anything 
suspicious  in  regard  to  them.  If  we  found  that  the  invoices  had  been 
raised  a  number  of  times,  or  anything  suspicious  about  the  handwrit- 
ing to  induce  us  to  believe  the  invoice  was  made  out  here  instead  of 
abroad,  our  usual  manner  was  to  visit  the  party.  The  surveyor  would 
generally  get  out  a  writ  for  the  purpose  of  entering  the  parties'  premi- 
ses, and  put  it  into  the  hands  of  one  of  the  inspectors,  and  either  Hart 
and  myself,  or  Hart  and  Franklin,  deputy  surveyor,  would  visit  the 
place  and  demand  to  see  the  books  and  papers  of  the  party.  Upon 
the  examination  of  such  books,  if  we  found  there  was  any  discrepancy 
between  them  and  the  invoices  presented  to  the  custom-house,  a  seizure 
would  be  made.  If  we  found  everything  straight  and  aboveboard, 
and  no  concealment  in  regard  to  letters, .  correspondence,  &c,  no 
seizure  would  be  made.  If  a  seizure  was  made,  an  officer  would  be 
put  in  possession  by  Mr.  Hart.  If  it  was  necessary  to  seize  the  goods, 
it  was  very  frequently  necessary  that  we  should  seize  the  papers  with 
them,  and  such  papers  and  books  would  be  taken  and  conveyed  to  the 
custom-house',  sometimes  with  and  sometimes  without  the  consent  of 
the  parties.  I  never  knew  of  any  force  being  used  but  once.  The 
object  was  to  secure  the  papers,  and  Mr.  Hart  took  the  ground  that 
the  papers,  the  invoices,  and  letters  belonged  to  the  custom-house,  as 
the  parties  were  bound  to  produce  them  to  the  custom-house  whenever 
required.  If  a  seizure  was  made,  a  man  was  placed  in  possesion  of  the 
store  with  orders  to  allow  nothing  to  go  out  or  come  in.  The  papers 
were  generally  placed  in  my  hands  to  ascertain  if  there  was  any  differ- 
ence between  the  man's  books  and  the  invoices  the  min  had  presented. 
1  sometimes  found  discrepancies,  and  would  generally  make  out  the 
amount  as  near  as  I  could.  It  would  consume  some  time.  In  the 
meantime  the  officer  would  remain  in  possession  of  the  store.  We 
would  then  make  out  a  statement  of  what  we  thought  we  could  prove 
before  a  court,  and  present  the  matter  to  the  district  attorney.  Fre- 
quently the  party  would  come  down  by  attorney  and  offer  to  compro- 
mise or  pay  the  amount  we  had  discovered  as  the  difference  between 
the  books  and  the  invoices  presented.  In  that  case  a  letter  would  be 
written  by  myself  to  the  district  attorney,  and  the  case  regularly 
prosecuted  in  court.  But  upon  the  amount  being  paid  into  court,  the 
court  would  order  a  release  of  the  goods. 

Question.  Was  it  the  practice  of  the  department  to  compromise 
these  matters  ?  If  so,  state  particularly  the  manner  in  which  the 
compromise  was  made. 

Answer.  The  compromise  was  always  based  upon  the  amount  of 
frauds  we  could  prove  from  the  papers  we  had,  by  the  difference  be- 
tween them  and  the  books.  But  the  compromise  took  place  upon  the 
confiscation  of  the  goods.  It  frequently  happened  that  a  man's  goods 
were  taken  out  of  the  boxes  and  placed  upon  the  shelves;  and  it  would 
be  impossible  to  pick  out  goods  which  came  from  a  particular  ship, 
and  the  naval  officer  and  surveyor  would  say  that  what  we  could 


TESTIMONY. 


47 


prove  positively  should  be  taken  as  the  basis  of  compromise  without 
going  into  a  suit. 

Question.  Had  you  authority  to  compromise? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  hardly  considered  it  in  the  light  of  a 
compromise;  it  was  this:  we  would  make  out  a  statement  of  what  we 
could  prove,  and  were  willing  to  take  that  amount,  if  paid  into  court, 
and  release  the  goods  rather  than  commence  a  suit.  It  was  rather 
the  saving  a  suit  than  a  compromise.  The  party  would  be  willing  to 
enter  into  a  condemnation  of  the  goods,  and  pay  the  amount  into 
court,  rather  than  be  exposed. 

Question.  Was  there  any  record  of  this  transaction? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Where? 

Answer.  In  the  correspondence  with  the  district  attorney. 
Question.  Was  any  record  of  it  in  the  custom-house? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir.    We  have  copies  of  every  paper,  and  they  show 
everything  seized  while  I  was  in  the  office. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  made  any  sales  of  goods  ? 
Answer.  Only  once. 
Question.  What  was  that? 

Answer.  They  were  goods  under  the  value  of  one  hundred  dollars, 
which  had  been  in  the  custom-house  for  ten  years  previous.  The  sale 
was  advertised.  The  goods  had  been  laying  around  in  the  different 
cellars  and  places  where  goods  had  been  stored,  and  each  parcel  was 
less  than  one  hundred  dollars  in  value.  That  was  the  only  sale  made 
under  my  supervision. 

Question.  Upon  whose  order  was  the  sale  made? 

Answer.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Question.  To  whom  were  the  returns  made? 

Answer.  Three  copies  were  made  out.  One  went  to  the  collector, 
one  to  the  auditor's  room,  and  one  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  of  cases  being  hushed  up  upon 
the  payment  of  a  sum  of  money  ? 

Answer.  Only  of  one  when  I  was  in  office.  I  do  not  know  any- 
thing about  that  personally. 

Question.  What  position  did  James  B.  Craig  occupy  in  the  custom- 
house ? 

Answer.  He  was  private  secretary  to  Collectors  Curtis,  Redfleld, 
and  Schell. 

Question.  At  what  salary  ? 

Answer.  Twelve  hundred  dollars  a  year. 

Question.  Did  he  receive  anything  else? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  him  say  that  Curtis  and  Redfield  gave  him 
one-third  of  their  proportion  of  the  seizures. 
Question.  For  what  purpose? 

Answer.  As  a  premium,  for  his  vigilance,  and  because  he  was  a 
very  good  detective.  That,  of  course,  came  out  of  the  collector's  own 
private  pocket. 

Question.  During  the  time  you  were  connected  with  the  custom- 
house wnat  was  your  estimate  of  the  amounts  received  by  the  collector, 
surveyor,  and  naval  officer,  as  their  respective  shares  of  the  seizures  ? 


48 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  My  idea  lias  always  been  that  each  one  received  §150,000 
in  the  four  years  of  their  term. 

Question.  What  did  you  base  that  idea  upon? 

Answer.  Upon  my  books.  Just  before  Schell  left  the  office  there 
was  a  book  made  out  by  Mr.  Bayard  of  all  the  seizures  made  ? 

Question.  Is  there  anything  in  the  custom-house  which  will  show 
the  amounts  prosecuted  for,  and  the  cases  which  have  been  settled? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  all  those  things  become  a  matter  of  record.  The 
matter  can  be  done  in  no  other  way,  unless  it  is  done  by  a  merchant 
and  an  outside  officer. 

Question.  Is  a  man  in  the  custom-house  allowed  to  become  an  in- 
former ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  never  heard  of  one  being  an  in- 
former. I  have  always  understood  that  that  was  not  to  be  counte- 
nanced. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  cases  where  middle  men  have  come  in 
and  intervened  between  the  custom-house  authorities  and  parties  who 
have  violated  the  laws? 

Answer.  None,  except  the  lawyer  employed  by  the  opposite  party. 

Question.  You  have  stated  that  you  thought  each  of  the  three  offi- 
cers received,  during  the  four  years,  §150,000.  If  they  received  that, 
how  much  ought  the  government  to  have  received? 

Answer.  The  government  should  receive  as  much  as  the  three  offi- 
cers. I  have  understood  that  these  amounts  would  be  paid  into  court, 
and  by  the  order  of  the  court  into  the  hands  of  the  auditor;  that  the 
auditor  would  set  aside  one-half  for  the  government,  and  divide  the 
remainder  into  three  equal  shares,  and  give  one  share  to  each  officer. 
I  presume  that  has  been  the  case  always. 

Question.  If  documents  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  show 
that  there  has  only  been  from  seventy  to  eighty  thousand  paid  into 
the  treasury  during  that  four  years,  what  has  become  of  the  remainder? 

Answer.  I  should  say  a  false  report  had  been  made. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  heard  anything  of  that  kind? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  that  the  papers  stated  that  only  seventy  or 
eighty  thousand  had  been  paid  in,  and  I  scouted  the  idea  because  I 
knew  better. 

Question.  During  your  connexion  with  the  custom-house  what  was 
the  custom  in  regard  to  releasing  goods  seized  for  any  alleged  viola- 
tion of  the  revenue  laws,  before  the  institution  of  any  legal  proceed- 
ing, upon  the  payment  of  a  specific  sum  agreed  upon  by  the  proper 
custom-house  officers  and  the  claimant  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  None  has  ever  been  released  that  I  know  of  except  by 
order  of  the  court  after  the  money  was  paid  into  court. 

Question.  Then  in  all  instances  where  a  seizure  was  made  legal 
proceedings  were  instituted? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  except  in  cases  where,  after  an  investigation  by 
the  officer  of  the  customs,  all  things  were  found  to  be  right.  In  such 
cases  I  was  ordered  by  the  collector,  naval  officer,  and  surveyor,  to 
release  the  goods. 

Question.  But  when  money  was  paid  it  was  always  paid  into  court? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


TESTIMONY. 


49 


Question.  Then,  while  you  were  in  the  custom-house,  the  auditor 
could  receive  no  money  except  through  the  clerk  of  the  district  court? 
Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  from  seizures. 
Question.  Had  you  charge  of  the  labor  contract? 
Answer.  I  had  at  No.  12  Broad  street. 

Question.  By  whom  was  that  labor  contract  held  when  you  first 
became  connected  with  the  business? 

Answer.  It' was  made  during  the  time  I  was  in  office.  I  think  I 
am  a  witness  to  it.  It  was  made  by  Mclotyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  It  was 
signed  by  Mclntyre,  but  whether  in  the  firm  name  I  do  not  know. 
James  B.  Craig  and  Mather  both  had  an  interest  in  it. 

Question.  Was  Craig,  at  the  time  he  had  an  interest  in  the  con- 
tract, still  in  the  custom-house? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  did  this  contract  continue  ? 
Answer.  Up  to  six  or  eight  months  ago,  I  understand. 
Question.  Until  after  the  incoming  of  Barney? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  were  the  circumstances  attending  its  dissolution? 
Answer.  During  its  existence  it  was  transferred  by  Mclntyre, 
Bixby  &  Co.  to  other  parties. 
Question.  What  other  parties? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  understood  that  one  is  a  clerk  of 
Charles  H.  Marshall. 

Question.  What  were  the  inducements  to  that  transfer? 

Answer.  I  only  know  what  has  been  told  me.  I  understood  that 
Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  were  paid  $21,000  for  it.  Mclutyre,  Bixby 
&  Co.  had  what  is  called  a  general-order  store,  and  they  were  told  by 
Mr.  Barney-  and  others  that  that  part  of  the  business  would  be  taken 
away  from  them  unless  this  contract  was  transferred.  Simon  Stevens 
had  something  to  do  with  it.    He  worked  the  contract  afterwards. 

Question.  Was  this  general- order  store  which  they  had  a  profitable 
store  ? 

Answer.  It  was ;  for  the  reason  that  all  of  the  goods  which  came 
into  port  upon  the  right-hand  side  of  the  city  were  sent  to  that  store, 
provided  they  were  not  permitted  before  the  general  order  was  given. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  that  the  fear  that  this  store  would 
be  taken  from  them  induced  the  transfer  of  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Mclntyre  told  me  he  received  a  check  from 
Barney,  Parsons  &  Co. 

Question.  Who  were  they  ? 

Answer.  A  law  firm,  of  which  Barney  was  a  member. 
Question.  What  did  Stevens  tell  you  in  relation  to  his  connexion 
with  it  ? 

Answer.  He  said  it  was  arranged;  that  it  was  all  right;  and  wanted 
me  to  work  with  them.  I  did  not  understand  the  matter,  because  I 
had  nothing  but  the  supervision  of  the  labor.  I  had  nothing  to  do 
with  putting  men  on  or  putting  them  off. 

Question.  Explain  the  technical  meaning  of  the  word  "ring,"  as 
used  in  New  York  ? 

Answer.  It  is  where  several  parties  combine  together  to  get  a  good 
Part  in — 4 


50 


TESTIMONY. 


thing,  and  divide  the  profits  between  them.  Mclntyre  told  me  they 
made  $40,000  a  year  out  of  the  contract. 

Question.  At  the  time  of  the  expiration  of  the  contract,  who  were 
interested  in  it  besides  Stevens? 

Answer.  I  understood  that  Mathers,  former  canal  commissioner, 
was. 

Question.  You  understand,  then,  that  Mather  was  with  Mclntyre, 
Bixby  &  Co.,  and  that  after  inducing  them  to  sell  out  he  gets  into 
the  new  ring  which  was  formed  by  Stevens  &  Co.  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  saw  him  frequently  in  the  office  overhauling 
the  books  and  making  himself  at  home,  as  he  had  previously  done. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  terms  and  considerations  upon  which 
Mather  got  into  the  new  ring  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  in  relation  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  same  business  is  now  done  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Is  there  anything  inconsistent  between  the  fulfilment  of 
the  obligations  of  that  contract  and  the  proprietorship  of  a  general- 
order  store  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir ;  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  each  other.  They 
were  separate  and  distinct  matters,  but  I  suppose  it  was  a  matter  of 
favoritism  in  a  party  getting  a  general-order  store. 

Question.  Do  you  mean,  then,  that  there  were  no  considerations  of 
a  public  character  which  induced  the  transfer  of  the  labor  contract, 
based  upon  the  connexion  of  this  firm  of  Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  with 
the  general-order  store  ? 

Answer.  I  should  say,  no.  Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  had  had  a 
general-order  store  for  many  years,  even  before  the  labor  contract  was 
made. 

Question.  When  did  your  connexion  with  the  custom-house  cease? 
Answer.  About  the  first  of  August,  1861. 

Question.  If  the  number  of  packages  of  goods  imported  into  the 
country,  under  the  present  tariff,  has  diminished  twenty-five  per  cent., 
would  it  follow  that  the  labor  which  was  formerly  performed  under 
the  labor  contract  could  be  now  performed  correspondingly  cheaper  ? 

Answer.  As  a  matter  of  course. 

Question.  At  the  time  the  contract  was  made  was  it  in  reality  an 
economical  contract  for  the  government  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  it  only  became  otherwise  by  the  falling  off  of  the 
importations? 

Answer.  That  is  all.  The  appointment  of  these  laborers  was  a 
political  matter,  and  was  so  for  many  years,  and  men  were  appointed 
who  did  nothing,  and  had  nothing  to  do,  but  drew  their  pay.  There 
were  probably  fifty  or  sixty  men  who  were  never  on  duty. 

Question.  Then,  taking  into  account  this  political  consideration, 
this  change  was  really  a  measure  of  economy  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  would  the  cost  of  performing  this  labor  at  the  time 


TESTIMONY. 


51 


the  contract;  was  in  existence  compare  with  the  cost  of  performing  it 
at  this  time  ? 

Answer.  Between  the  time  when  the  contract  was  made  and  the 
time  I  went  out  of  the  custom-house  the  labor  had  fallen  off  one-third 
or  one-half.  For  six  months  before  I  left  office  there  was  but  half  as 
much  labor  to  perform  as  before.  Then,  of  course,  the  contract  was 
very  profitable. 

Question.  What  was  the  price  of  labor  at  that  time  compared  with 
what  it  is  now  ? 

Answer.  There  is  not  much  difference. 

Question.  If  the  number  of  packages  at  this  time  are  equal  to  or 
about  the  same  number  as  when  the  contract  was  first  made,  would 
not  the  same  system  be  a  measure  of  economy  now  ? 

Answer.  If  the  old  system  of  employing  labor  should  be  adopted,  it 
would  be. 

Question.  Taking  into  consideration  the  enhanced  price  of  labor, 
would  it  not  be  in  a  still  greater  degree  a  measure  of  economy  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  there  has  been  any  enhanced  price  of  labor. 

Question.  Are  the  daily  wages  of  labor  pretty  much  the  same  now 
as  then  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


New  York,  December  19,  1862. 

James  B.  Craig  sworn  : 

Question.  What  is  your  business,  and  where  ? 

Answer.  Since  1858  I  have  been  an  attorney  and  counsellor-at-law 
in  New  York.  For  five  or  six  years  prior  to  that  time  I  was  in  the 
custom-house. 

Question.  In  what  capacity  ? 

Answer.  Confidential  clerk  of  Collectors  Bronson,  Kedfield,  and 
Schell. 

Question.  What  was  the  practice  of  the  custom-house,  during  your 
connexion  with  it,  as  to  adjusting  controversies  growing  out  of  seizures 
of  goods  for  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws,  without  the  subject  be- 
coming one  of  judicial  investigation  and  prior  to  legal  steps  being 
taken  ? 

Answer.  During  my  term  in  the  custom-house  the  officers  were  in 
the  habit  of  agreeing  upon  the  terms  of  the  adjustment  of  seizures  of 
merchandise  for  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws,  the  adjustment  being 
subsequently  made  through  the  intervention  of  the  court. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  that  no  final  adjustment  of  seizures  was 
made,  to  your  knowledge,  while  you  were  acting  in  the  character  you 
have  mentioned,  where  the  subject-matter  did  not  become  a  matter  of 
legal  investigation  ? 

Answer.  I  meant  to  say  that  while  I  was  in  office,  when  we  made 
a  seizure  of  merchandise,  if  the  party  desired  an  adjustment  of  it,  he 
made  an  arrangement  of  the  terms  of  the  adjustment  with  the  revenue 
officers,  and  the  district  attorney  was  then  directed  by  the  collector  to 


52 


TESTIMONY. 


see  that  the  terms  agreed  upon  between  the  collector  and  the  claimant 
were  carried  out  in  the  court. 

Question.  Were  there  not  frequently  seizures  which  were  made  by 
custom-house  officers  actually  adjusted  without  the  subject  ever  com- 
ing to  the  knowledge  of  the  district  attorney,  or  any  other  officer  of 
the  district  court  ? 

Answer.  Never,  to  my  knowledge,  except  where  the  payment  of  the 
amount  was  less  than  $100.  Those  small  amounts  were  sometimes 
paid  directly  to  the  auditor  by  the  party,  without  the  intervention  of 
the  court  or  the  district  attorney. 

Question.  Ultimately,  all  the  moneys  paid,  growing  out  of  fines 
and  forfeitures  connected  with  the  revenue  laws,  go  into  the  hands  of 
the  auditor  of  the  custom  house.  Through  what  channel  does  he  uni- 
formly receive  such  fines  and  forfeitures  ? 

Answer.  During  the  time  I  was  in  office  I  never  knew  the  auditor, 
with  the  exception  I  have  named,  to  receive  moneys  on  account  of  fines 
or  forfeitures  through  any  other  source  than  the  clerk  of  the  district 
court. 

Question.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  what  is  known  as 
the  labor  contract  ? 

Answer.  I  was  one  of  the  original  parties  to  it. 
Question.  How  many  parties  were  there? 
Answer.  Four  contractors. 

Question.  Name  all  the  members  of  the  firm,  and  then  the  firn^ 
name. 

Answer.  There  was  no  firm  name.  The  contract  was  made  with 
four  individuals — Mclntyre,  Mather,  Bixby,  and  myself. 

Question.  What  were  the  terms  as  to  the  payments  to  be  made  to 
the  contractors  ? 

Answer.  I  am  unable  to  state  from  recollection. 

Question.  About  how  much  a  week  ? 

Answer.  It  was  two  thousand  and  some  odd  dollars  weekly. 

Question.  Was  the  amount  paid  by  the  government  under  the  con- 
tract more  or  less  than  the  cost  of  the  same  labor  for  the  year  prior  to 
its  being  made? 

Answer.  I  cannot  pretend  now  to  give  the  figures  exactly,  but  my 
impression  is  that  the  amount  paid  by  the  government  to  the  con- 
tractors was  in  the  neighborhood  of  $100,000  a  year  less  than  it  had 
cost  the  government  up  to  that  time. 

Question.  When  did  that  labor  contract  expire  ? 

Answer.  The  date  I  cannot  tell.  The  contract  was  to  run  for  three 
years  from  the  time  we  took  it.  I  think  it  expired  some  time  this 
year. 

Question.  Since  the  expiration  of  that  contract  the  government  has 
been  having  that  labor  performed  in  the  old  mode? 
Answer.  I  believe  so. 

Question.  If  the  present  collector,  Barney,  is  able  to  have  that  labor 
performed  at  this  time  for  a  less  sum  than  that  allowed  by  the  terms 
of  the  labor  contract,  do  you  account  for  it  from  the  fact  that  a  larger 
number  of  laborers  were  employed  prior  to  the  contract  being  made 


TESTIMONY.  53 


than  was  necessary,  or  from  the  fact  that  there  has  heen  an  actual 
falling  off  of  the  labor  to  be  performed? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  can  do  it  for  any  less  ;  but  if  he  can,  it 
will  be  because  of  the  decrease  in  the  importations  and  the  smaller 
number  of  packages  to  be  examined. 

Question.  What  was  that  labor  contract  worth  ? 

Answer.  I  think  we  had  the  contract  fifteen  months  before  we  as- 
signed it,  and  1  think,  in  the  fifteen  months,  we  made  from  forty  to 
fifty  thousand  dollars,  including  the  bonus  we  received.  I  cannot  be 
exactly  certain  as  to  dates  or  amounts. 

Question.  Up  to  what  time  was  this  contract  held  by  the  original 
contractors  ? 

Answer.  1  think  up  to  April  or  May,  1861. 

Question.  Did  you  make  a  sale  of  the  contract  about  that  time;  and 
if  so,  did  you  all  sell  your  interests,  and  to  whom? 

Answer.  So  far  as  I  know,  we  all  sold  our  interests,  and  I  under- 
stood we  were  to  receive  from  Simon  Stevens  and  Luther  B.  Wyman 
$20,000  for  it.  At  any  rate,  I  received  $5,000  for  my  quarter  interest 
in  the  contract. 

Question.  What  was  your  motive  for  selling? 

Answer.  I  thought  it  was  a  good  sale. 

Question.  Had  you  any  other  reason  for  selling? 

Answer.  My  business  engagements  were  such  that  I  could  not  de- 
vote any  time  to  it  without  serious  detriment  to  that,  and  I  preferred 
to  have  §5,000  and  not  spend  the  time,  than  to  have  the  contract  and 
spend  the  time. 

Question.  Did  you  apprehend  that  the  contract  might  be  annulled? 
Answer.  I  was  apprehensive  of  it. 
Question.  Why? 

Answer.  Because,  from  the  time  the  contract  was  entered  into,  there 
were  several  attempts  made  by  various  persons  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives to  have  a  resolution  passed  annulling  the  contract,  and  I  did 
not  suppose  that  if,  under  a  democratic  administration,  efforts  would 
be  made  to  annul  a  contract  made  by  democrats,  any  less  efforts  would 
be  made  under  a  republican  administration  to  annul  a  contract  made 
by  democrats. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  that  the  original  contractors  were  demo- 
crats ? 

Answer.  Such  were  their  politics. 

Question.  And  do  you  mean  that  within  a  month  after  this  ad- 
ministration came  into  power,  this  contract  was  sold  out  to  repub- 
licans ? 

Answer.  Stevens  is  a  republican,  and  I  have  always  understood  that 
Wyman  was  a  republican. 

Question.  Who  paid  you  the  $5,000? 

Answer.  I  think  I  received  a  check  of  William  Allen  Butler. 
Question.  Who  is  he? 

Answer.  He  acted  as  the  attorney,  I  understood,  in  making  the  ne- 
gotiation for  the  parties  to  whom  we  assigned. 

Question.  Was  he  in  anyways  connected  with  the  custom-house,  or 
with  any  officers  of  the  custom-house? 


54 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  He  had  no  connexion  with  the  custom-house  that  I  knew 

of,  and  none  with  any  officer  of  the  custom-house,  unless  he  was  a 
member  of  the  law  firm  of  Barney,  Butler  &  Parsons. 

Question.  This  a!l  happened  about  the  time  Barney  was  appointed 
collector  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  when  Barney  was  appointed  collector. 

Question.  What  connexion  had  Barney,  the  collector  of  the  port, 
with  that  sale,  either  directly  or  indirectly  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  he  had  any.  I  did  not  negotiate  for 
the  sale  of  the  contract  myself,  except  that  I  had  one  interview  with 
Mr.  Butler  to  arrange  with  him  that  the  sureties  I  had  furnished  for 
the  contract  be  indemnified,  and  that  was  after  the  terms  had  all  been 
agreed  on. 

Question.  What  suggestions  did  you  understand  Mr.  Barney  had 
made  upon  the  subject  of  transferring  this  contract  to  other  parties  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  understood  he  made  any  suggestion  upon 
the  subject. 

Question.  What  did  you  hear  that  he  had  said  about  that  labor 
contract  prior  to,  or  about  the  time  you  sold  it  to  Stevens  and 
Wyman  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  heard  that  Barney  had  said  any- 
thing about  it. 

Question.  Or  any  other  person  connected  with  the  custom-house? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  heard  anything  from  any 
official. 

Question.  Is  there  any  necessary  connexion  between  the  general- 
order  business  or  stores,  and  the  execution  of  this  labor  contract? 

Answer.  None  that  I  am  aware  of.  I  had  not  anything  to  do  with 
any  general-order  store  when  I  had  the  contract.  Some  of  my  part- 
ners had  two  or  three  general-order  stores. 

Question.  Taking  the  ordinary  importations  for  the  last  three  years, 
what  number  of  laborers  would  it  require  to  perform  the  labor  which 
was  required  to  be  performed  under  that  contract? 

Answer.  Since  my  connexion  with  the  contract  ceased  I  have  paid 
no  attention  to  the  importation  or  the  amount  of  labor  to  be  done, 
and  therefore  I  am  unable  to  give  any  answer. 

Question.  During  the  time  you  were  executing  the  contract,  how 
was  it? 

Answer.  Our  number  of  men  varied.  Sometimes  we  had  over  a 
hundred  men,  and  again,  for  a  short  time,  the  number  was  reduced 
down  to  as  low  as  sixty. 

Question.  What  were  the  weekly  profits  of  that  contract  at  the  time 
you  made  the  sale  of  it? 

Answer.  I  think  about  $1,000  a  week. 

Question.  Have  you  any  connexion  with  the  custom-house  now? 
Answer.  None  whatever,  unless  it  be  in  the  relation  of  counsel. 
Question.  Counsel  for  the  custom-house  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir;  for  the  government. 

Question.  Do  I  understand  from  that,  that  the  government  is  in  the 
habit  of  employing  counsel  in  addition  to  the  district  attorney  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


55 


Answer.  Yes,  sir.  We  "have  been  employed  in  a  very  large  num- 
ber of  cases  to  assist  the  district  attorney. 

Question.  What  is  the  name  of  your  law  firm? 
Answer.  Webster  &  Craig. 

Question.  When  your  firm  has  been  employed  to  assist  the  district 
attorney,  it  has  been  an  employment  by  some  particular  custom-house 
officers  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  by  the  officers  here. 

Question.  In  such  cases  are  the  fees  paid  by  the  government,  or  by 
the  particular  custom-house  officer  who  employed  you  ? 

Answer .  We  are  employed  in  at  least  one  case,  and  perhaps  two, 
by  the  present  officers,  but  we  have  not  yet  sent  in  our  bill  to  any- 
body, and  I  do  not  know  who  will  pay  them.  I  do  not  know  whether 
they  had  authority  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  retain  us  as 
counsel  or  not,  in  one  of  the  cases. 

Question.  How  was  it  under  former  officers? 

Answer.  From  the  officers  themselves,,  as  private  parties. 

Question.  Has  your  firm  ever  been  retained  by  the  government  to 
assist  the  district  attorney,  so  that  the  fees  were  paid  by  the  govern- 
ment itself? 

Answer.  We  were  retained  by  the  officers  here  to  assist  in  the  investi- 
gation in  regard  to  what  is  known  as  the  Buenos  Ayres  case.  I  was  em- 
ployed a  month  in  taking  testimony,  but  have  not  sent  in  my  bill  yet, 
and  I  have  been  informed  by  the  officers  that  it  was  done  upon  the  au- 
thority of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Question.  What  is  the  practice  of  the  government? 

Answer.  When  I  was  in  the  custom-house,  we  would  frequently 
write  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  asking  for  authority  to  employ 
counsel  in  certain  cases,  and  the  Secretary  never  refused  to  grant  it. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  whether  similar  applications  have  been 
made  by  the  present  officers  to  the  present  administration  ? 

Answer.  I  think  William  Curtis  Noyes  was  also,  by  the  authority 
of  the  present  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  retained  in  the  Buenos  Ayres 
cases. 


New  York,  December  19,  1862. 

Francis  Wigand  sworn : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  Hoboken. 

Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  Leather  merchant  and  importer. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  dealings  with  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  State  it  in  detail. 

Answer.  Some  time  last  fall  some  officers  from  the  custom-house 
came  to  my  store  and  wanted  to  see  my  books.  I  refused  to  show 
them  unless  I  was  shown  a  warrant.  They  showed  me  a  warrant, 
wherein  it  was  said  they  suspected  me  of  smuggling.  For  that  rea- 
son they  wanted  to  look  for  smuggled  goods  in  my  store.    But  there 


56 


TESTIMONY. 


was  nothing  said  in  the  warrant  about  my  being  obliged  to  show  my 
books,  and  I  refused  to  show  them  ;  but  they  took  them  away  by 
force,  though  I  protested. 

Question.  What  did  you  do  next  ? 

Answer.  I  went  to  see  a  lawyer  about  it.  I  tried  to  get  out  a  writ 
to  put  me  in  possession  of  my  books,  but  the  judge  refused  to  grant  it. 
About  that  time  several  persons  were  arrested  lor  political  offences, 
and  lie  thought  that  if  my  papers  had  been  seized  there  must  be  some 
good  cause  lor  it,  and  he  would  not  interfere  with  the  custom-house 
authorities.  So  I  was  kept  out  of  my  books  for  several  weeks.  My 
goods  were  seized  also. 

Question.  Who  was  your  lawyer  ? 

Answer.  Francis  Cutting  and  Mr.  Craig. 

Question.  Did  you  confer  in  person  with  the  custom-house  officers, 
or  through  a  lawyer  ? 

Answer.  Through  my  lawyer. 

Question.  What  was  the  sum  demanded  of  you? 

Answer.  A  large  sum. 

Question.  Whom  did  your  lawyer  confer  with  at  the  custom-house? 
•   Answer.  I  do  not  know,  but  I  think  the  collector. 
Question.  How  much  did  you  finally  pay? 
Answer.  $2,500. 

Question.  What  did  your  lawyer  say  they  asked  at  first  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  the  amount,  but  it  was  more  than  that. 
Question.  Upon  what  charge  or  pretence? 
Answer.  Upon  the  charge  of  fraudulent  invoices. 
Question.  How  came  you  to  pay  $2,500? 

Answer.  That  was  about  the  value  of  the  goods  they  had  seized 
which  belonged  to  me. 

Question.  Was  it  true  you  had  made  false  invoices  ?  « 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  exactly  make  false  invoices. 

Question.  How  came  you,  then,  to  pay  $2,500  ? 

Answer.  Because  they  had  possession  of  my  books,  and  I  saw  no 
other  way  of  getting  them  back. 

Question.  Could  not  you  get  back  your  books  and  goods  if  you  had 
not  been  guilty  of  any  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  doubt  I  could,  but  it  might  have  broken  up  my 
business  before  I  could  do  it. 

Question.  You  may  explain  wherein  there  was  any  departure  by 
you  from  the  revenue  laws. 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  be  proper  for  me  to  answer 
that  question. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  this  sum  of  money  because  you  considered 
that  you  had  violated  the  revenue  laws? 
Answer.  I  cannot  answer  that  question. 

Question.  How  long  were  your  goods  in  the  custody  of  the  revenue 
officers  ? 

Answer.  Two  or  three  weeks. 

Question.  Did  your  lawyers  advise  you  that  you  had  better  pay  this 
sum  ? 

Answer.  Finally,  Mr.  Cutting  advised  me  to  pay  it,  because  if  I 


TESTIMONY. 


57 


sued  the  officers  it  would  take  a  great  deal  of  time,  and  my  expenses 
might  be  just  as  large  and  I  might  not  gain  anything  by  it ;  at  least, 
that  would  be  the  shortest  way  of  getting  possession  of  my  books  and 
papers. 

Question.  Did  the  case  go  through  any  process  in  court  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Question.  What? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  the  particulars  ;  I  never  was  in  court,  but 
I  had  to  sign  a  paper  to  get  the  release  through  the  court. 
Question.  What  paper  did  you  sign  ? 

Answer.  So  far  as  I  recollect,  it  was  a  statement  of  the  amount  of 
the  goods,  and  that  I  consented  to  pay  $2,500. 
Question.  Did  you  stipulate  not  to  sue  anybody? 
Answer.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question.  Is  this  the  only  instance  in  which  you  have  had  trouble 
with  the  custom-house  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


New  York,  December  20,  1862. 

Daniel  Jackson  sworn : 

Question.  Will  you  state  your  official  position  in  the  custom-bouse  ? 

Answer.  I  am  chief  clerk  of  the  seventh  division. 

Question.  Would  it  come  within  the  province  of  your  official  duties 
to  be  acquainted  with  the  number  of  packages  of  goods  imported  into 
the  United  States  from  foreign  countries  for  a  series  of  years  past  ? 

Answer.  It  would  be  my  duty  to  know  the  number  of  packages 
received  into*  the  public  store — packages  ordered  to  be  examined. 

Question.  What  number  of  packages  are  imported? 

Answer.  Only  a  portion  of  the  packages  are  ordered  for  examina- 
tion— one  out  of  ten  ;  that  is  about  the  ratio  when  there  is  a  large  im- 
portation. 

Question.  What  officers  of  the  government  can  furnish  information 
as  to  the  number  of  packages  imported  during  any  particular  time? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  it  is  possible  to  get  any  information  of  that 
kind  unless  through  a  great  deal  of  trouble.  The  only  way  would  be 
to  examine  the  officer's  returns  of  vessels. 

Question.  To  what  articles  of  importation  did  the  labor  contract, 
which  expired  on  the  first  day  of  last  August,  apply  ? 

Answer.  It  applied  to  dry-goods,  hardware,  drugs,  &c. 

Question.  In  what  manner  did  it  apply,  and  what  labor  was  to  be 
done  under  it  ? 

Answer,  Those  goods  were  to  be  sent  into  the  store,  hoisted  to  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  store  and  opened,  and,  after  examination,  they  were 
to  be  closed,  lowered  to  the  proper  places  of  delivery,  and  there  deliv- 
ered to  the  merchant's  carts. 

Question.  All  the  goods  which  were  effected  by  that  labor  contract 
when  in  existence,  were  goods  which  would  come  under  the  notice  of 
your  office  ? 


58 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Will  you  state  what  proportion  of  the  packages  imported 
were  thus  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  labor  contract,  and  what  was 
the  specific  object  to  be  accomplished  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  means  of  getting  at  that  information. 

Question.  What  is  the,  reason  that  certain  labor  is  to  be  performed 
in  reference  to  certain  importations  and  not  to  others  ? 

Answer.  There  are  certain  classes  of  goods  ordered  to  the  public 
stores  for  examination  for  the  purpose  ot  comparing  the  goods  with 
the  invoices — goods  which  have  to  be  examined  critically  as  to  their 
value  and  contents.  Another  class  of  goods  are  examined  upon 
the  wharves,  such  as  iron  and  heavy  articles — the  value  of  which  may 
be  determined  by  a  mere  glance  at  the  articles.  Sugar,  molasses,  and 
iron  are  never  ordered  to  the  stores,  and  until  lately  coffee  was  never 
sent  there. 

Question.  And  the  labor  contract,  then,  only  applied  to  such  articles 
as  were  sent  to  the  public  stores? 
Answer.  That  is  all. 

Question.  Is  any  labor  performed  for  which  compensation  is  made 
by  the  government  as  to  goods  which  are  taken  away  by  the  importers 
themselves  or  their  assignees,  or  goods  which  are  not  so  taken,  but 
which  also  were  not  sent  to  the  government  store  for  examination  ? 

Answer.  The  government  is  at  no  expense  in  regard  to  the  general- 
order  stores.  There  are  some  stores  at  the  Atlantic  dock  with  the  work- 
ing of  which  I  am  not  very  familiar.  They  belong  to  Mr.  Bruce's 
department. 

Question.  So  that  the  labor  contract  only  applied  to  such  goods  as 
were  in  the  government  stores  for  examination  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  only  those  which  were  in  the  United  States  ap- 
praisers' stores. 

Question.  With  a  view  of  determining  the  question  whether  the  in- 
voices were  or  were  not  correct  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  as  to  value  and  contents. 

Question.  Can  you  furnish  from  your  office  a  statement  of  the  num- 
ber of  such  packages  as  have  been  sent  to  the  appraisers'  store  during 
the  four  years  preceding  the  first  day  of  the  present  month? 

Answer.  I  think  I  can.  At  the  close  of  each  month  the  deputy 
collector  in  charge  of  the  public  stores  furnishes  a  report  to  Mr.  Barney, 
which  report  we  send  to  Washington,  and  in  that  is  generally  men- 
tioned the  number  of  packages  received  into  the  store. 

The  following  is  the  statement,  subsequently  furnished  by  the  witness  : 


TESTIMONY. 


59 


Statement  of  the  number  of  packages  received  into  United  States  appraiser 
stores,  compiled  from  monthly  reports  of  the  deputy  collector  in  charge. 


Date. 


1857 

June  

July  

August  

September. 
October  ... 
November. 
December  . 

1858 
January . . . 
February . . 

March  

April  

May  

.June.  

July  

August  

September. 
October  ... 
November. 
December  . 

1359 
January. 
February.. 


Number. 


7,578 
17, 155 
14,716 
12, 119 
8,335 
7,364 
6,337 


4,688 
5,944 
9,560 
7,853 
7,888 
8,011 
10, 150 
13,867 
11,033 
8,730 
9,748 
9,657 


12,025 
14,002 


Date. 


1859. 

March  

April  

May  

June  

July  

August  

September  

October  _  

November  

December  


1860. 
January 

February   

March  

April  

May  

June  , 

July  

August  

September  

October  , 

November  . ., 
December  


Number. 


1,365 
15,316 
16,002 
12,932 
17,215 
18,444 
No  report. 

....do.... 

....do.... 
11,701 


No  report 
....do.... 
....do.... 
9, 191 
11,023 
8, 126 
14,079 
17,270 
10,948 
11,018 
8,706 
11,213 


Date. 


1861. 

January   

February 

March  

April  

May  

June  

July  

August  

September- 
October   

November  . 
December.. 


1862. 
January  . . 
February  . 

March  

April  

May  

June  

July  

August  

September 
October  _ . . 
November 


Number. 


11,113 

10,763 
6,437 
7,406 

No  report. 

....do  


.do.... 
4,  038 
3,967 
4,464 
5,121 
5,706 


5,633 
6,121 
10,246 
8,951 
7,541 
7,045 
9,433 
11,610 
11,295 
8,677 
5,852 


Question.  Will  the  number  of  packages  sent  to  the  public  stores  be 
increased  or  decreased  ratably  with  the  increase  or  decrease  of  impor- 
tations ;  and  what,  in  your  judgment,  based  upon  the  facts  within 
your  knowledge,  is  the  comparative  importations  during  the  year 
ending  the  first  day  of  this  month,  and  each  of  the  preceding  three 
years  ? 

Answer.  To  the  first  part  of  the  question  I  answer  I  think  not. 
During  a  period  of  light  importations,  smaller  invoices  of  goods  are 
imported;  that  is,  there  is  a  smaller  number  of  packages  returned  on 
the  invoices,  and  the  law  requires  a  certain  number  of  packages  from 
each  invoice  shall  be  sent  to  the  store.  Where  there  are  twenty  cases 
of  the  same  kind  of  goods  upon  the  same  invoice,  probably  only  two 
packages  would  be  sent,  whereas  if  there  were  only  two  cases  on  the 
invoice,  both  of  them  would  be  sent. 

To  the  last  part  of  the  question  I  am  unable  to  give  an  answer. 


New  Yoke,  December  20,  1862. 

Munson  Gray  sworn : 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  experience  in  connexion  with  the 
custom-house  in  New  York  ? 


60 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  I  have  been  in  the  appraisers'  store  about  22  years,  and 
up  to  last  March. 

Question.  Before  the  labor  contract  was  made,  in  what  manner  was 
the  labor,  which  was  provided  for  by  that  contract,  performed,  and 
under  whose  direction? 

Answer.  Under  direction,  I  believe,  of  the  storekeeper  and  the  col- 
lector.   The  government  furnished  the  labor  and  employed  the  men. 

Question.  What  are  the  general  duties  of  the  custom-house  store- 
keeper ? 

Answer.  He  is  supposed  to  be  in  charge  of  the  stores  under  the 
collector.    I  mean  by  the  public  stores,  the  appraisers'  stores. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  the  buildings  in  which  certain  packages  of 
goods  are  sent  for  examination  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  The  storekeeper  then  has  the  general  charge  and  control 
of  the  goods  which  are  sent  to  the  public  store  for  examination  to  see 
whether  the  articles  imported  correspond  with  the  invoices,  and 
whether  any  frauds  are  being  perpetrated  upon  the  revenue  laws? 

Answer.  They  are  under  his  charge. 

Question.  Was  the  expense  to  the  government  increased  or  dimin- 
ished by  what  is  known  as  the  labor  contract,  which  was  entered  into 
about  the  first  of  August,  1859? 

Answer.  I  think  wThen  that  contract  was  first  made  the  importa- 
tions were  very  limited,  and  the  expense  to  the  government  was  very 
heavy  for  labor. 

Question.  Were  men  employed  who  were  not  actually  needed? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  a  great  many  more  than  were  needed.  The 
number  of  men  was  gradually  increased  until  they  numbered  mure 
than  200,  which  were  far  more  than  were  needed. 

Question.  Political  influences  resulted  in  a  constant  increase? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  in  connexion  with  bad  management  upon  the 
part  of  the  storekeeper. 

Question.  Now,  the  question  is  whether  those  expenses  were  in- 
creased or  diminished  by  the  adoption  of  the  labor  contract? 

Answer.  I  think  the  contract  was  considerably  less  than  the  ex- 
penses were  before  to  the  government,  but  then  the  importations  fell 
off  very  much,  particularly  during  the  year  1861.  The  contractors 
managed  the  store  with  a  very  few  men,  and  with  very  little  expense 
comparatively. 

Question.  And  of  course  from  that  cause  resulted  large  profits  to 
the  contractors  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Taking  the  last  two  or  three  years  as  a  basis,  what  would 
be  the  fair  annual  expense  of  performing  the  labor  in  connexion  with 
the  government  stores  ?  . 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  answer  that  question.  In  1861, 
if  I  recollect  aright,  the  importations  were  light,  and  the  contractors 
employed  only  about  fifty  men.    I  do  not  know  the  exact  number. 

Question.  What  was  the  amount  received  per  year  by  the  contract- 
ors under  the  labor  contract,  and  during  the  year  1861  ?   What  were 


TESTIMONY. 


61 


the  probable  expenses,  and  what  the  fair  profit  to  the  contractor  under 
the  contract,  and  what  the  number  of  men  ordinarily  employed  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  they  received  about  $126,000  a  year  out  of  the 
contract.  The  expenses  were  about  $49,000,  leaving  a  profit  of  about 
$77,000.    The  men  employed  were  about  fifty,  on  an  average. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  of  that  contract  being  transferred  to 
other  parties  ? 

Answer.  The  original  contractors  were  Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co., 
and  it  was  reported  that  other  parties  came  in — Mr.  Simon  fetevens 
and  Mr.  Wyman,  and  some  others,  as  I  heard. 

Question.  Did  any  one  of  these  contractors  interfere  with  the  du- 
ties of  the  government  storekeeper,  in  any  way,  in  breaking  packages 
or  delivering  goods  ? 

Answer.  There  was  a  package  received  in  the  store  from  one  of  the 
steamers,  and  sent  to  the  fourth  loft  of  the  building.  A  few  days 
afterwards,  in  going  the  rounds  of  the  store,  I  found  that  package  in 
the  contractors'  private  office,  opened.  A  part  of  the  contents  had 
been  taken  out  and  delivered  to  the  owners.  I  believe  the  duties  had 
not  been  fully  paid  upon  that  package.  I  ascertained  that  Mr.  Ste- 
vens ordered  that  package  from  the  fourth  story  to  his  office,  and  had 
had  it  opened  and  a  part  of  the  goods  delivered. 

Question.  By  what  authority  did  he  do  it? 

Answer.  I  suppose  he  would  say  he  took  the  responsibility.  He 
got  it  out  through  the  clerks,  in  some  way  or  other,  but  he  had  no 
authority  to  do  it.  I  take  it,  he  had  no  authority  under  the  contract. 
I  wrote  a  note  to  the  collector  about  it. 

Question.  Was  it  not  your  duty,  when  this  fact  came  to  your 
knowledge,  to  complain  of  Stevens's  conduct  in  interfering  with  pub- 
lic business  which  did  not  concern  him  ? 

Answer.  Certainly  ;  and  I  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Barney  stating  the 
fact. 

Question.  What  was  the  result?  Was  Mr.  Stevens  excluded  after- 
wards from  the  public  building  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  he  got  me  excluded  afterwards.  He  gave  me 
to  understand  that  the  thing  was  made  all  right,  and  if  I  was  not 
quiet  upon  the  subject  he  would  get  me  removed. 

Question.  When  was  this? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  in  August,  1861. 

Question.  Were  these  contractors  allowed  any  clerks  at  the  expense 
of  the  government  ? 

Answer.  They  had  the  services  of  two  government  clerks,  but  they 
were  not  allowed  by  the  government.  One  was  Mr.  Baum,  who  made 
out  a  list  of  the  men  and  called  the  roll,  and  I  believe  he  acted  as 
foreman  of  the  contractors.  His  relation  to  the  government  was  that 
of  receiving  clerk.  Mr.  Dempsey  was  the  other  clerk  in  the  store- 
keeper's office.    He  used  to  make  out  the  pay-roll  for  the  contractors. 

Question.  Did  this  Mr.  Stevens  occupy  a  room  in  the  government 
storehouse? 

Answer.  He  had  an  office  in  front,  on  Broadway. 
Question.  Fitted  up  at  the  expense  of  the  government? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


62 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Was  it  a  public  office,  or  was  it  for  his  own  use  ? 
Answer.  It  was  an  office  for  the  contractors. 

Question.  Was  any  such  office  known  in  that  building  before  that 
time  ? 

Answer.  Not  before  the  contract  was  made.  The  other  contractors 
had  an  office  in  Broad  street,  but  not  fitted  up  like  Stevens's  office. 

Question.  He  fitted  up  an  office  in  Broadway? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  at  a  large  expense  to  the  government,  too. 

Question.  Do  you  think  it  cheaper  and  more  economical  for  the 
government  to  have  this  labor  performed  by  contract  than  to  have  it 
performed  by  the  storekeeper  employing  men  for  that  purpose? 

Answer.  I  think  the  government  can  do  it  cheaper  than  it  has 
been  done,  and  I  am  told  that  they  are  doing  it  cheaper  now  than 
they  were  under  the  contract,  though  they  have  increased  the  number 
of  men.  I  think  there  are  more  men  there  than  are  needed,  but  still 
I  believe  the  work  is  done  cheaper  than  formerly. 

Question.  Are  goods  which  are  seized  for  a  violation  of  the  revenue 
laws  taken  to  the  public  stores  ? 

Answer.  Nearly  all  are.  If  a  whole  cargo  were  seized  they  could 
not  take  them  there;  but  generally,  I  believe,  seized  goods  are  taken 
there.    I  believe  there  is  a  new  plan  adopted  now. 

Question.  A  list  of  the  goods  so  seized  is  kept  at  the  public  stores  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  so. 

Question.  Is  the  practice  now  as  to  seized  goods  different  from  what 
it  was  formerly  ? 

Answer.  Several  years  ago  the  seized  goods  were  entered  and  re- 
ported (by  the  Uuited  States  storekeeper,  56  Broadway)  at  the  ware- 
house department  the  same  as  other  goods.  But  in  order,  I  suppose; 
to  have  that  branch  of  the  business  kept  secret,  a  private  report  is 
now  made  to  the  clerks  in  the  collector's  department.  Formerly  the 
seized  goods  were  in  charge  of  the  storekeeper  at  the  appraisers'  store, 
but  now,  I  believe,  the  goods  are  locked  up  in  a  private  room  and  the 
key  is  in  the  hands  of  a  clerk,  under  the  direction  of  the  surveyor. 
This  is  all  wrong.  The  storekeeper  is  the  proper  person  to  take 
charge  of  the  seized  goods,  which  should  be  entered  on  the  report 
and  sent  to  the  warehouse  department.  Then  every  package  seized 
would  be  accounted  for  to  the  government. 


New  York,  December  20,  1862. 

Stewart  Van  Yliet  sworn  : 

Question.  Please  state  your  official  position,  and  where  you  are  on 
duty  at  the  present  time. 

Answer.  I  am  quartermaster  in  the  army,  and  am  on  duty  in  New 
York  city,  in  charge  of  the  quartermaster's  department. 

Question.  Have  you,  as  such  quartermaster,  purchased  or  chartered 
any  vessels  for  any  of  the  recent  expeditions  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not. 

Question.  Please  state  whether  any  such  purchases  or  charters  of 


TESTIMONY. 


63 


vessels  "have  been  made  in  the  city  of  New  York  ;  and  if  so,  when  and 
by  whom,  so  far  as  your  knowledge  extends? 

Answer.  I  was  informed  that  Commodore  Yanderbilt  was  intrusted 
with  getting  up,  chartering,  and  fitting  out  vessels  for  the  Banks 
expedition.  I,  as  quartermaster  here,  have  neither  chartered  nor  pur- 
chased vessels  for  that  expedition. 

Question.  These  charters  and  purchases,  so  far  as  you  know,  have 
been  made  by  Mr.  Yanderbilt  ? 

Answer.  They  have,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  extends. 

Question.  What  are  your  means  of  knowledge  in  this  matter  ?  and 
have  any  returns  been  made  to  your  office  of  the  purchases  and  charters 
made  ? 

Answer.  No  returns  whatever  have  been  made  to  my  office.  Those 
transactions  were  independent  of  the  quartermaster's  department  in 
this  city. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  what  vessels  Commodore 
Yanderbilt  purchased  and  chartered  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not  officially.  All  I  know  is  from  what  he  told  me. 
I  knew  he  was  engaged  in  fitting  out  the  expedition. 

Question.  To  whom  does  Commodore  Yanderbilt  report  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Where  should  the  list  of  those  vessels  be  found  ? 

Answer.  He  should  make  a  charter  for  each  vessel  and  forward  it 
to  the  quartermaster  general's  office.  I  know  that  Mr.  Tucker,  the 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War,  has  been  on  here  in  relation  to  matters 
connected  with  that  expedition,  and  consulted  with  Commodore  Yan- 
derbilt. . 

Question.  Will  you  furnish  the  committee  with  a  list  of  trie  vessels 
chartered  or  purchased  by  you  ? 

Answer.  I  will. 

The  following  is  the  list,  subsequently  furnished  by  the  witness  : 


64 


TESTIMONY. 


2>  ■ 


cj 

<->-H 

o 
c 

a 


cs 


c  _ 

O 


o  o 


c  £ 

ce  d 

>  P 
s>  r 

g  s 
IIS 

>  <r 

rQ  H 
«C  X 


25 


V 

<  x"  <5 


ill 
o  «<  a 


^5  — 


^3 


O  JE 


^  C3 


O 

Is  :  § 


O  e3 

Q  t-a  h3 


©©©©©©©© 
©©©©u"5©©© 


©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© 


CO  — I  ©  ©  ©  ©  CO 
C<T  r-'  r-T  i-T  i-T 


OOCOOOOOOOOCO^H^IOO 

o  o      ©  ©  o  o  »rs  o  o  o  ©  to  l~  >G 

©©CO-<fCOCOCOCr3"^i"*Ji»Q<N©<M<M 


©  CO 

O  00  N 

o  ©  o 


s   •  bp  •  •  *e  03 


55 
„  X 


5  o 


5  5 

d  S3 


bo's  s  a 

0)  FT* 


o  S    W  £ 

B 


B  o  o  ^  o 

§  i  =  a  = 

!i    [J     S  Cj    ^  g 

C  _U  _CJ  _o  ^ 

x  -x  x  x  x  x 


s  s 


£  2 

«  ce 

X  X 


o  « 
o  £ 


:1 1 1'll 

3  o  S  c?x 

h  h  h  b  h 

CJ    O    O    ^  V 

SB" 


S  2 

11 

d  CO 


3-x 


xK 


|  a 

-5  ^> 


a>  sj  u  d  o  s 


v  <v 

X  X  X  CC  X  03  CO  X 


2  2  2  2 


x  x 


§  •  2 
js 

a  a. 
IS  15  )5 
xxx 


TESTIMONY. 


1 
U 


I 
u 


i 

z, 

35  i35 


444-54^-2  -5  44  -g  44 


44444 


444 


1 


IN 


in* 


*1ti 


>o  ur;  c~  ©  o  o  o      o  o  o  o 


lilliilSglSSllillSiiie 


'fififffifffffffffffi 

Part  iii  5 


6G 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Under  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  War  Department, 
through  whom  would  such  charters  and  purchases  as  have  been  made 
by  Vanderbilt  be  naturally  made? 

Answer.  Through  the  officers  of  the  quartermaster's  department. 

Question.  For  what  reason  was  the  usual  mode  prescribed  by  the 
rules  and  regulations  departed  from  in  this  case  ? 

Answer.  1  do  not  know.  I  think  Mr.  Vanderbilt  was  appointed  a 
special  agent  for  the  government. 

Question.  Does  he  hold  any  office  in  the  quartermaster's  depart- 
ment ? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  He  sent  in  some  papers  to  my 
office,  in  which  he  signed  himself  special  agent. 

Question.  Was  there  any  reason  within  your  knowledge  why  the 
quartermaster's  department  could  not  have  been  employed  to  do  that 
business  ? 

Answer.  None. 

Question.  Had  you  not  sufficient  force  in  your  office  to  perform  that 
service  ? 

Answer.  I  had  and  have  sufficient  force. 

Question.  Had  you  yourself  suggested  that  in  consequence  of  the 
other  duties  of  your  office,  that  business  should  be  devolved  upon  some 
other  person  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  the  assistant  quartermaster  general  in  this  city  con- 
sulted upon  that  question  at  all? 
Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Have  you  understood  what  course  would  be  taken  after 
the  departure  of  the  expedition? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  understood  that  then  everything  con- 
nected with  the  expedition  would  be  transferred  to  the  quartermaster's 
department. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  understand  that? 
Answer.  I  believe  from  Commodore  Vanderbilt  himself,  and  from 
the  Assistant  Secretary  of  War,  John  Tucker. 
Question.  Has  such  transfer  yet  been  made? 
Answer.  It  has  not. 

Question.  Have  any  vessels  chartered  or  purchased  by  you  been 
turned  over  to  the  Banks  expedition  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  have  no  official  information  of  the  fact,  but  I 
understand  that  some  fifteen  vessels  that  I  chartered  have  been  turned 
over  to  that  expedition.  In  the  latter  part  of  October  I  received  in- 
structions from  the  quartermaster  general  to  charter,  for  a  short 
period,  vessels  sufficient  to  carry  ten  thousand  troops  tore-enforce  our 
troops  at  Port  Royal.  Those  vessels  were  chartered  about  the  first 
of  November,  and  sent  to  Baltimore  and  Washington  to  receive  the 
troops.  But  I  understand  that  those  vessels  were  subsequently  trans- 
ferred to  the  Banks  expedition.  I  have  not  purchased  any  vessels 
which  were  transferred  to  that  expedition. 

Question.  Will  you  furnish  the  committee  with  a  list  of  the  vessels 
chartered  by  you  which  were  so  turned  over  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


TESTIMONY. 


67 


The  following  is  the  list  subsequently  furnished  by  the  witness  : 


Name  of  vessel. 


Date  of 


For  what  period. 


Rate  per 
I  day. 


Remarks. 


Steamer  Arago. 


Steamer  Atlantic  . . 

Steamer  Baltic  

Steamer  Curlew  ... 
Steamer  Key  West. 

Steamer  Thorn  I  Oct. 

Nov. 
Nov. 


Steamer  Thames*. . 
Steamer  Matanzas. 


Steamer  Pocahontas 
Propeller  City  of  Bath 


1862. 

Oct.   29  '  15  days,  with  privilege  . . 


Oct.   30  ,....do  do  

Oct.  30  ....do  do  

Oct.   30   do  do  

Oct.   30  ....do  do  

31  I.. ..do  do  

1  i....do   do  

1  J  2  months  from  November 
6,  with  privilege. 
Nov.    3  i  15  days,  with  privilege  . . . 
Nov.    7  !  For  a  voyage  from  New 
York  to  Hilton  Head, 
via  Washington. 


$1,200 


1.200 

i:200 

'375  ! 
600  . 
250 
350  ; 
800  I 

650 
500 


All  port  charges  and  pilotage,  except  oat 
and  in  and  at  New  York,  to  be  paid 
by  Major  Tan  Vliet.  Coal  found  by 
owners. 

Do.  do.  do. 

Do.  do.  do. 

Do.  do.  do. 

Do.  do.  do. 

Do.  do.  do. 

Do.  do.  do. 

Do.  do.  do. 

Do.  do.  do. 

All  port  charges  and  pilotage,  except  out 
and  in  and  at  New  York,  to  be  paid  by 
Major  Van  Vliet;  and  all  coal  for  use 
of  said  steamer  to  be  supplied  by  Major 
Stewart  Van  Vliet. 


*  The  Thames  is  a  new  vessel,  built  for  China  trade ;  was  chartered  by  Captain  Hodge,  United  States  army, 
March  5,  1862;  has  been  to  Port  Royal  and  back  ;  was  discharged  September  15,  and  taken  in  service  again 
November  1  to  take  troops  to  Hilton  Head  ;  broke  her  machinery  and  was  towed  into  Port  Royal.  She  is  one 
of  the  best  sea-going  vessels  of  her  tonnage. 

STEWART  VAN  VLIET, 

Major  and  Quartermaster. 


New  York,  December  22,  1862. 

Robert  Murray  sworn : 

Question.  Please  state  your  residence  and  official  position. 
Answer.  I  reside  in  New  York,  and  am  United  States  marshal  for 
the  southern  district  of  New  York. 

Question.  How  long  have  vou  occupied  that  position  ? 
Answer.  Since  the  20th  of  "April,  1861. 

Question.  Can  you  state  to  the  committee  the  amount  of  money  you 
have  received  by  virtue  of  your  office  during  the  time  you  have  been 
marshal  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  without  examining  my  books. 
Question.  Will  you  furnish  a  statement  thereof  to  the  committee 
and  consider  the  same  as  a  sworn  part  of  your  evidence? 
Answer.  I  will. 

The  witness  subsequently  furnished  the  following  statement : 


U.  S.  Marshal's  Office,  Southern  District  of  New  York, 

New  York,  December  24,  1862. 
Marshal's  earnings  from  22d  April  to  the  30th  June, 

1861, inclusive   $950  56 

Marshal's  net  earnings  from  the  1st  day  of  July,  1861,  to 

the  31st  day  of  December,  1861   2,930  47 


68 


TESTIMONY. 


Marshal's  net  earnings  from  1st  January,  1862,  to  30th 
June,  1862  

Marshal's  net  earnings  from  1st  July  to  31st  December, 
1862,  probably  


$2,126  80 


1,500  00 


7,507  83 


Deduct  from  above  amount  disallowances  by  First  Comp- 
troller   


800  00 


6,707  83 


The  probable  amount  of  marshal's  commissions  arising  from  the 
sale  of  all  prize  property  during  the  existence  of  the  present  rebellion, 
after  deducting  the  expenses  of  additional  clerk  hire  and  three  addi- 
tional deputies,  together  with  interest  upon  advances  made  by  him, 
and  other  incidental  expenses,  will  not  exceed  $15,000. 


Question.  Of  what  items  are  the  receipts  made  up  ? 

Answer.  Fees  for  serving  legal  processes,  for  making  arrests  on 
criminal  warrants,  for  commissions  as  disburing  officer  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  for  commissions  on  the  marshal's  sales. 

Question.  Is  there  any  limitation  by  law  on  the  amount  of  your  fees? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  is  it? 

Answer.  Not  to  exceed  $6,000. 

Question.  Have  you  received  anything  by  virtue  of  the  confiscation 
of  vessels? 

Answer.  I  have  received  nothing  under  the  confiscation  act,  nor 
from  the  condemnation  of  prizes ;  on  the  contrary,  I  am  in  advance 
some  fifty  or  sixty  thousand  dollars. 

Question.  Where  is  all  the  prize  money  which  has  been  received? 

Answer.  In  the  sub-treasury. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  amount  ? 

Answer.  About  a  million  of  dollars.  About  three  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars  more  has  been  deposited  within  one  or  two  days,  making 
in  all  in  the  neighborhood  of  $1,250,000. 

Question.  Is  what  you  receive  from  confiscations  and  prize  money 
outside  of  your  salary  ? 

Answer.  That  is  a  mooted  question. 

Question.  If  it  should  be  decided  that  you  should  be  entitled  to  fees 
in  connexion  with  those  matters  outside  of  $6,000,  what  would  it 
amount  to? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say. 

Question.  Would  it  be  heavy  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  would  be  heavy.  I  can  make  a  calculation  and 
submit  it  to  the  committee.  I  would  like  to  say  in  this  connexion 
that  a  week  ago  last  Saturday  I  was  sued  in  these  slave-trade  cases. 
I  had  arrested  quite  a  number  of  vessels  charged  with  beiug  engaged 
in  that  traffic.    They  were  condemned  in  the  district  court,  and  an 


ROBERT  MURRAY, 

United  States  Marshal. 


TESTIMONY. 


69 


appeal  was  taken.  Pending  that  appeal  the  vessels  and  cargoes  were 
bonded.    I  have  been  sued  for  the  wharfage,  storage,  and  labor. 

Question.  Who  is  going  to  settle  this  question  of  your  fees  beyond 
the  $6,000. 

Answer.  I  think  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 
Question.  It  has  not  yet  been  settled? 

Answer.  It  has  not.  My  commissions  under  the  fee  bill  are  two 
and  a  half  per  cent,  on  the  first  five  hundred  dollars,  and  one  and  a 
quarter  per  cent,  on  all  above  thai  amount.  In  the  ordinary  business 
of  the  marshal's  office  of  this  district  it  is  impossible  to  make  honesty 
the  maximum.  The  marshal  cannot  make  over  three  or  four  thou- 
sand dollars  under  the  present  fee  bill. 


New  York,  December  22,  1862. 

Joseph  S.  Smith,  sworn: 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  Brooklyn. 

Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  I  am  storekeeper  by  appointment  at  the  United  States 
public  stores  in  Broadway. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  derive  your  appointment  ? 

Answer.  From  Mr.  Barney  and  Secretary  Chase  together,  I  suppose. 

Question.  What  is  the  system  now  pursued  at  the  public  stores  in 
reference  to  receiving  and  delivery  of  goods  ? 

Answer.  The  labor  is  now  performed  by  the  government,  under  the 
direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  Mr.  Barney. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  in  charge  of  the  public  stores? 

Answer.  Only  since  the  8th  of  September,  1862.  I  was  appointed 
to  that  place  the  first  of  March,  but  there  was  a  contract  then  existing 
between  the  government  and  some  gentlemen  of  this  city  who  con- 
ducted the  business. 

Question.  Have  you  had  an  opportunity  to  judge  of  the  comparative 
cost  of  doing  this  work  under  the  contract  system  and  the  present 
system  ? 

Answer.  I  had  not  a  fair  opportunity  to  judge,  from  the  first  of 
March  to  the  8th  of  September,  as  to  the  real  cost  under  the  contract 
system.  I  had  no  access  to  the  books  and  pay-roll.  They  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  men  who  had  the  contract.  I  had  charge  of  the  books 
containing  the  record  of  receipt  and  delivery  of  goods,  but  had  no  con- 
trol of  the  men  employed.  Since  the  8th  of  September  I  have  had 
charge,  under  Mr.  Barney,  the  collector,  of  the  men  and  the  payment 
of  the  men. 

Question.  How  does  the  force  now  employed  compare  with  the 
force  then  employed  ? 

Answer.  I  was  instructed  to  take  charge  of  the  store  with  the  men 
employed  on  the  8th  of  September.  Beyond  that  I  have  no  means  of 
knowing  how  many  men  they  employed.  From  the  increased  busi- 
ness we  had  difficulty  in  receiving  and  delivering  goods  with  the  ex- 


70 


TESTIMONY. 


pedition  and  despatch  required  by  merchants,  with  the  number  of  men 
employed  when  we  took  the  business  from  the  contractors. 
Question.  Have  you  men  enough  now  ? 

Answer.  We  have  rather  more  men  now  than  are  required,  as  busi- 
ness has  relaxed.  More  men  were  added  in  October,  but  last  week  an 
order  was  received  to  dismiss  eight  or  ten  to-day. 

Question.  Did  you,  in  October,  put  on  more  men  than  were  neces- 
sary for  the  business  then  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not. 

Question.  How  many  had  you  in  November,  over  and  above 
what  were  necessary  to  do  the  business  ? 

Answer.  I  think  we  might  have  got  along  with  perhaps  fifteen  or 
twenty  less.  But  men  are  coming  and  going,  and  sometimes  they 
are  sick,  and  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  sufficient  force. 

Question.  How  many  are  employed  now  ? 

Answer.  The  average  number  in  the  appraisers'  department  is  110. 
Question.  At  what  wages  ? 

Answer.  Mostly  at  fifty  dollars  a  month.  A  few  receive  less  than 
that. 

Question.  Have  your  more  men  at  the  present  time  than  are  abso- 
lutely required  ? 

Answer.  I  think  we  have  more  men  now  than  we  are  using,  asbusiness 
is  a  little  slack.  I  understand  that  ten  more  are  to  be  dismissed,  with 
the  understanding  that  when  business  increases  they  shall  be  put  on 
again. 

Question.  Is  the  business  now  managed  as  cheaply  as  it  can  be  ? 

Answer.  It  has  been  since  the  8th  of  September,  and  the  expenses 
have  been  very  considerably  less  than  they  were  under  the  contract. 
I  have  brought  with  me  a  statement  showing  the  comparative  ex- 
penses last  year  under  the  contract  and  the  expenses  this  year,  and 
also  showing  the  increase  of  business  this  year  over  that  of  last  year. 
It  is  sixty-seven  per  cent,  during  the  two  months  and  over  in  which  I 
have  had  charge  of  the  business. 

Question.  What  does  the  table,  which  you  here  offer  as  a  part  of 
your  testimony,  exhibit  in  full  ? 

Answer.  It  shows  the  difference  in  the  amount  paid  by  the  govern- 
ment to  the  contractors  and  that  paid  since  the  contract  expired,  dur- 
ing corresponding  periods  of  time. 

Question.  What  is  that  difference  ? 

Answer.  It  is  $6,026  40  less  from  the  8th  of  September  to  the  1st 
of  December. 

Question.  What  else  does  the  statement  show? 

Answer.  It  shows  the  increase  of  business  during  that  time  over 
that  of  the  same  period  last  year.  The  increase  is  about  sixty-seven 
per  cent.    It  gives  the  number  of  packages  in  both  cases. 

Question.  What  else  does  the  statement  show  ? 

Answer.  It  shows  that  the  business  for  four  months  preceding  the 
first  of  December  this  year  is  more  than  double  what  it  was  during 
the  corresponding  time  last  year.  I  made  an  estimate  for  Mr.  Barney 
that  the  business  of  the  store  may  be  done  with  liberality,  and  with 
full  payment  of  everything,  with  an  average  of  about  100  men. 


TESTIMONY. 


7L 


The  following  is  the  statement  presented  by  the  witness  as  a  part 
of  his  testimony  : 

Statement  of  the  expenses  of  United,  States  public  store,  from  September  8  to 

December  1,  1862. 


Date. 


Sept.,  1862, 


Oct.,  1862. 


^ov.,  1862. 


For  what  purpose. 


Incidental  expenses 

Cartage   

Labor  _   


Total  for  3£  weeks 


Incidental  expenses 

Cartage   

Labor   


Total  for  4J  weeks 


Incidental  expenses 

Cartage  

Labor   


Total  for  4^  weeks 


Amount. 


$47  64 
2,620  86 
3,395  95 


6,064  45 


447  43 
2.812  12 
5,374  45 


8,634  00 


554  73 
1,483  21 
5,622  20 


7,660  14 


Average  per 
week. 


$14  29 
786  24 
1,018  78 


99  42 
624  90 
1, 194  30 


133  14 

355  98 
1,349  28 


Average 
I  weekly. 


$1,819  31 


1,918  62 


As  paid  contractors : 

September,  3£  weeks,  at  $2,365  per  week 

October,  4£  weeks,  at  $2,365  per  week  

November,  4|  weeks,  at  $2,365  per  week 


Total 


$7,888  33 
10,642  50 
9,854  16 

28,384  99 


As  paid  since  September  8,  1862  : 

September,  3^  weeks   $6,064  45 

October,  4£  weeks  _   8,634  00 

November,  4~  weeks   .  -  7,660  14 


Total 


22,358  59 


6,026  40 

Number  of  packages  received  from  September  8  to  December  1,  1862. 


Average  of  September  for  20  days,  3^  weeks  6,  740 

Average  of  October,  4^  weeks    8,  677 

Average  of  November,  4^  weeks     5,  852 


Total   21,  26 J 

Number  of  packages  received  in  September,  1861,  3£  weeks   3,  173 

Number  of  packages  received  in  October,  1861     4,464 

Number  of  packages  received  in  November,  1861   5,  121 


Total   12,  758 


Increase 


8,511 


72 


TESTIMONY. 


8.511  packages  more  in  1862  than  in  1861,  being  an  increase  of  67  per  cent,  in  the 
business  :it  United  States  public  store  for  the  same  time. 

August,  1862   11,610 

September,  1862    11,  295 

October,  1862    8,  677 

November,  1862    5,852 

Total   37,434 

August,  1861    4,038 

September.  1861   3,967 

October,  1861   4,464 

November,  1861   5, 121 

Total   17,590 

Increase   19,844 


New  York,  December  22,  1862. 

Simon  Stevens  sworn  : 

Question.  Were  you,  or  were  you  not,  interested  in  what  is  called 
the  labor  contract  at  the  public  stores  ? 
Answer.  I  was. 

Question.  From  what  time  to  what  time? 

Answer.  From  about  the  11th  of  May,  1861,  until  about  the  6th 
or  7th  of  September,  1862. 

Question.  Who  else  was  interested  with  you  in  the  contract  during 
that  time  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Luther  B.  Wyman. 

Question.  Any  other  person  ? 

Answer.  I  know  of  no  other  person  directly  interested. 
Question.  Any  other  person  indirectly  ? 

Answer.  I  represented  one  half  of  the  contract  and  Luther  B.  Wy- 
man represented  the  other  half. 

Question.  Be  kind  enough  to  tell  us  whether  anybody  else  had  any 
direct  or  indirect  interest  in  it  ? 

Answer.  I  represented  one-half  of  it.  It  was  in  my  name.  I 
bought  it  and  paid  for  it. 

Question.  Did  anybody  have  any  direct  or  indirect  interest  in  that 
half  you  represented  ? 

Answer.  After  the  acquisition  of  the  contract  I  employed  Mr. 
Francis  M.  Bixby  to  conduct  the  business,  he  being  one  of  the  original 
contractors  with  the  government.  By  that  arrangement  he  had  an 
interest  under  me,  and  no  other  persons  under  me,  either  connected 
with  the  government  or  otherwise,  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Did  any  other  person  have  any  indirect  interest  in  the 
half  you  represented  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of,  unless  under  Mr.  Bixby. 

Question.  Did  anybody  have  any  indirect  interest  in  any  portion 
of  the  contract  except  that  which  you  represented  ? 

Answer.  I  have  only  my  suppositions. 


TESTIMONY. 


73 


Question.  "What  do  you  know  about  that  matter  ? 

Answer.  That  I  was  requested  to  pay  one-half  of  the  profits,  what- 
ever they  might  be,  over  and  above  expenses,  to  William  Allen  But- 
ler. Mr.  Butler  stated  that  he  was  the  attorney  for  Mr.  Wyman. 
Payments  were  so  made  and  receipt  therefor  given  by  William  Allen 
Butler,  as  attorney  for  the  first  two  payments.  Subsequently  receipts 
were  given  by  him  for  money  paid  to  him,  signed  in  initial  "  W.  A. 
B."  Then  and  from  that  day  all  payments  were  made  to  him  and 
receipts  given  by  him,  and  so  signed,  with  the  exception  of  some  few 
payments  which  were  made  to  George  W.  Parsons,  who  sometimes 
receipted  for  them,  simply  "G.  W.  P  ;"  on  some  occasions  "  W.  A. 
B.  per  G.  W.  P,,"  and  sometimes  "G.  W.  P.  for  W.  A.  B." 

Question.  Who  is  this  William  Allen  Butler? 

Answer.  He  is  of  the  law  firm  ol  Barney,  Butler  &  Parsons. 

Question.  Who  is  this  Mr.  Parsons  ? 

Answer.  He  is  of  the  firm  of  Barney,  Butler  &  Parsons. 

Question   Who  is  the  Barney  of  that  firm  ? 

Answer.  Hiram  Barney,  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York. 

Question.  Is  that  firm  now  in  business  here? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  any  of  these  proceeds  to  Mr.  Wyman  himself? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Wyman  himself  direct  you  where  to  pay  those 
proceeds  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  authority  directly  from  Mr.  Wyman 
to  pay  them  as  you  did  ? 

Answer.  Simply  on  the  day  of  the  execution  of  the  papers  Mr. 
William  Allen  Butler  said,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Wyman,  this  in 
purport:  "As  I  am  the  attorney  for  Mr.  Wyman,  the  net  proceeds  of 
this  contract  will  be  paid  to  me." 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Wyman  assent  to  that? 
•      Answer.  Mr.  Wyman  nodded  assent. 

Question.  You  took  no  paper  to  protect  you  for  such  payments  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not,  nor  have  I  any  such  papers. 

Question.  Do  you  know,  from  Mr.  Wyman  or  otherwise,  whether 
Mr.  Wyman  had  any  interest  in  this  contract  beyond  the  use  of  his 
name? 

Answer.  Mr.  Wyman  has  on  several  occasions  stated  to  me  that  he 
had  no  interest,  direct  or  indirect,  in  the  contract  otherwise  than  the 
use  of  his  name. 

Question.  Did  he  tell  you  who  had  the  interest  represented  by  his 
name  ? 

Answer.  He  said  he  knew  of  nobody  in  this  matter  except  William 
Allen  Butler,  who  claimed  to  act  as  attorney  for  the  parties  actually 
in  interest. 

Question.  What  is  the  business  of  Mr.  Wyman  ? 
Answer.  He  is  chief  clerk,  I  am  informed,  of  the  house  of  Charles 
H.  Marshall  &  Co. 

Question.  Is  any  member  of  the  firm  of  Charles  H.  Marshall  &  Co. 


74 


TESTIMONY. 


connected  with  either  of  the  members  of  the  firm  of  Barney,  Butler 
&  Parsons  ? 

Answer.  I  am  informed  that  William  Allen  Butler  married  the 
daughter  of  Charles  H.  Marshall. 

Question.  Is  there  any  other  connexion  between  any  member  of  the 
firm  of  Charles  H.  Marshall  &  Co.,  and  any  member  of  the  firm  of  Bar- 
ney, Butler  &  Parsons  ? 

Answer.  I  have  been  told,  though  I  do  not  know  it  of  my  own 
knowledge,  that  Mr.  Charles  H.  Marshall  is  one  of  the  sureties  of 
Hiram  Barney  on  his  official  bond  as  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York. 

Question.  How  came  you  first  connected  with  that  contract  ? 

Answer.  Being  personally  acquainted  with  each  of  the  owners  of 
the  original  contract,  shortly  previous  to  the  incoming  of  the  present 
administration  some  members  of  that  firm  informed  me  that  they 
would  like  to  dispose  of  the  contract.  I  undertook  to  make  arrange- 
ments to  buy  them  out. 

Question.  What  steps  did  you  take? 

Answer.  I  entered  into  negotiations  with  the  parties  owning  it,  and 
succeeded  in  making  the  purchase. 

Question.  In  your  negotiations  to  purchase  this  contract,  did  you 
find  that  any  other  parties  were  also  negotiating  to  purchase  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  parties  did  you  learn  were  negotiating  for  the  pur- 
chase of  it  while  you  were  also  negotiating  ? 

Answer.  Through  the  Hon.  Moses  F.  Odell  I  learned  that  other 
parties  were  negotiating  for  it.  Among  names  mentioned  was  that  of 
William  Allen  Butler,  who  claimed  to  be  acting  as  attorney  for  parties 
really  in  interest. 

Question.  What  was  your  next  step  after  learning  this  fact? 

Answer.  I  was  put  in  communication  with  Mr.  William  Allen  But- 
ler; negotiations  were  continued  to  completion,  and  the  contract 
assigned  to  Luther  B.  Wyman  and  Simon  Stevens.  A  power  of  attor- 
ney was  filed  in  the  auditor's  office,  authorizing  Luther  B.  Wyman  i 
and  Simon  Stevens  to  act  as  attorneys  for  William  N.  Mclutyre,  John 
C.  Mather,  Francis  M.  Bixbey,  and  James  B.  Craig.  Copies  of  the 
contract  and  power  of  attorney  I  submit  herewith. 

The  following  are  the  papers  submitted : 

Treasury  Department,  March  5,  1S62. 

Sir  :  In  compliance  with  the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
31st  ultimo,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  copies  of  contracts  made  by 
Augutus  Schell,  the  then  collector  of  customs,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  with  William  N.  Mclntire  and  others,  bearing  date  the 
6th  of  August  and  1st  October,  1859,  for  packing,  receiving,  distributing,  open- 
ing, closing,  and  delivering  packages  containing  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise 
imported  into  the  port  of  New  York ;  also  a  copy  of  a  bond  of  Theodore  Payne 
and  John  C.  Schumaker  to  the  United  States,  dated  26th  August,  1859. 

In  reply  to  the  second  branch  of  this  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, I  send  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Hiram  Barney,  collector  of  customs,  New 
York,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  labor  is  performed  under  the  direction  of 
Francis  M.  Bixby,  one  of  the  original  contractors,  and  the  weekly  payments  are 


TESTIMONY. 


75 


made  by  Luther  B.  Wyman  and  Simon  Stevens,  as  attorneys  of  William  N. 
Mclntire,  John  0.  Mather,  F.  M.  Bixby,  and  James  B.  Craig,  the  original  con- 
tractors. 

And  further  that  the  stores  where  the  goods  are  stored  upon  which  the  labor 
is  performed  under  the  contract  referred  to,  are  owned  by  Asa  Fitch,  but  are 
leased  to  the  government  by  Sturgis,  Shaw  &  Co.  at  an  annual  rent  of  $55,000. 
With  great  respect, 

S.  P.  CHASE, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  G.  A.  Grow, 

Speaker  of  House  of  Representatives. 


Treasury  Deparment, 
Office  of  Commissioner  of  Customs ;  February  5,  1862. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  copies  of  contracts  made  by 
Augustus  Schell,  the  then  collector  of  customs,  New  York,  with  the  approbation 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  with  William  N.  Mclntire  and  others,  bearing 
date  the  6th  of  August,  and  1st  October,  1859,  for  packing,  receiving,  distribu- 
ting, opening,  closing,  and  delivering  packages  containing  goods,  wares,  and  mer- 
chandise imported  into  the  port  of  New  York,  furnished  in  pursuance  of  a  reso- 
lution of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  dated  the  31st 
January,  1862;  also  copy  of  a  bond  of  Theodore  Payne  and  John  G.  Schu- 
maker  to  the  United  States,  dated  26th  August,  1859. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  your  obedient  servant, 

N.  SARGENT, 
Commissioner  of  Customs. 

Hon.  S.  P.  Chase, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  1,  1862. 

Sir  :  The  copies  of  contracts  between  Mclntire  and  others  and  the  United 
States  for  performing  labor,  &c,  at  the  appraisers'  stores,  which  were  enclosed 
in  your  letter  of  15th  ultimo,  have  been  carefully  compared  with  the  originals, 
and  are  herewith  returned,  together  with  a  copy  of  the  power  of  attorney  from 
the  contractors  to  Luther  B.  Wyman  and  Simon  Stevens.  There  are  no  other 
documents  in  this  office  relating  to  the  matter.  As  stated  in  my  letter  of  the 
12th  ultimo,  this  contract  has  no  reference  to  labor  on  ''general  order"  goods, 
which  is  always  performed,  at  the  expense  of  the  importer,  by  the  proprietor  of 
the  warehouse  where  the  goods  are  stored. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant. 

HIRAM  BARNEY,  Collector, 

Hon.  S.  P.  Chase, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Contract  between  William  N.  Mclntire  and  others  and  the  United  States  of 

America. 

This  indenture  made  this  twenty-sixth  day  of  August,  in  the  year  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  fifty-nine,  by  and  between  William  N.  Mclntire,  John 
C.  Mather,  Francis  M.  Bixby,  and  James  B,  Craig,  parties  of  the  first  part,  and 
Augustus  Schell,  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  acting  for  and  in  behalf  of 


76 


TESTIMONY. 


the  United  States,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  party 
of  the  second  part,  witnesseth :  Whereas  it  is  desirable  to  reduce  the  expenses 
of  labor  and  laborers  at  the  United  States  appraisers'  stores  in  Broad  street,  or 
such  stores  as  may  from  time  to  time  be  known  as  such,  in  packing,  receiving, 
distributing,  opening,  closing,  and  delivering  packages  containing  goods,  wares, 
and  merchandise  imported  into  the  port  of  New  York,  so  far  as  a  due  regard 
for  the  interests  of  the  government  and  the  importer  will  permit: 

And  whereas  the  said  William  N.  Mclntire,  John  C.  Mather,  Francis  M. 
Bixby,  and  James  B.  Craig,  parties  of  the  first  part,  propose  to  furnish  such 
labor  and  laborers,  and  perform  such  services,  and  to  pay  the  expense  of  trans- 
porting said  merchandise  to  said  stores  for  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
seven  thousand  (137,000)  dollars  per  annum,  payable  weekly  in  equal  weekly 
payments  of  two  thousand  six  hundred  and  thirty-four  and  sixty-one  one 
hundredths  (2,  634-^L)  dollars : 

Now,  therefore,  the  parties  of  the  first  part,  for  and  in  consideration  of  one 
dollar  received  by  them  from  the  party  of  the  second  part  before  the  delivery 
hereof,  and  in  consideration  of  the  several  and  mutual  covernants  and  agreements 
herein  contained,  on  the  part  of  the  party  of  the  second  part,  to  be  paid,  done,  and 
performed,  have,  and  by  these  presents,  for  themselves,  their  heirs,  executors  and 
administrators,  do  covenant,  promise,  aud  agree  to  and  with  the  party  of  the 
second  part  and  with  his  successors  in  office  and  assigns,  that  for  and  during  the 
term  of  three  years,  from  the  fifth  day  of  September,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  fifty-nine,  and  for,  and  during  the  existence  of  this  contract,  and  while  the 
same  shall  be  and  remain  in  full  force  and  virtue  binding  and  obligatory  upon 
the  parties  hereto,  the  parties  of  the  first  part  will  furnish,  employ,  and  pay  at 
their  own  sole  cost  all  the  labor  and  laborers  which  may  be  at  any  and  all  times 
necessary  for  the  purpose  of  receiving,  storing,  and  delivering  all  goods,  wares, 
and  merchandise  which  may  be  received  at  the  stores  in  Broad  street,  now  occu- 
pied and  used  by  the  United  States  appraisers,  or  any  stores  which  may,  during 
the  continuance  of  this  contract,  be  occupied  and  used  by  said  appraisers  for  the 
examination  and  appraisement  of  imported  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  by 
virtue  of  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  ;  that  they  will  take  the  pack- 
ages from  the  carts  and  drays,  and  will  place  and  distribute  said  packages  in 
such  parts  of  said  stores  as  the  party  of  the  second  part  or  the  United  States 
appraisers  may  direct  for  the  covenient  examination  of  said  packages,  and  will 
open  the  same  for  such  examination  by  said  appraisers,  and  will  repack  and 
close  the  same  when  examined,  and  will,  under  the  directions  of  the  said  party 
of  the  second  part,  deliver  to  the  importer  said  goods,  wares  and  merchandise 
wmen  duly  permited,  or  transfer  the  same  to  such  bonded  warehouse  as  may  be 
ordered  by  the  party  of  the  second  part,  and  furnish  carts  and  cartmen  for  such 
transfer  or  delivery,  the  expenses  of  such  transfer  or  delivery  being  chargeable 
on  goods  so  transfered  or  delivered ;  that  tbey  will  furnish  carts  and  cartmen, 
and  transfer  all  goods  ordered  by  the  party  of  the  second  part  from  bonded 
warehouses  to  said  stores  in  Broad  street;  and  that  they  will  pay  all  such  inci- 
dental expenses  as  may  be  incurred  in  keeping  in  repair  the  hatchways,  the 
floors,  stairways,  ceilings,  and  other  portions  of  the  stores  now  used  by  said 
appraisers,  or  which  may,  during  the  continuance  of  this  contract,  be  used  by 
them  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  and  all  other  incidental  expenses  as  may  be 
incurred  at  said  stores,  and  will  perform  any  other  labor  or  service  which  the 
prompt  and  efficient  receipt,  examination,  and  delivery  of  goods,  wares,  and  mer- 
chandise at  said  stores  may,  in  the  opinion  of  said  party  of  the  second  part, 
require. 

And  the  parties  of  the  first  part  further  covenant  and  agree,  as  aforesaid,  to 
employ  no  laborer  in  said  stores  whose  integrity  or  general  conduct  shall  or  may 
be  objectionable  to  the  party  of  the  second  part,  or  to  the  United  States  ap- 
praisers. 


TESTIMONY. 


77 


The  party  of  the  second  part  shall  retain  the  entire  possession  and  control  of 
said  stores,  and  the  custody  of  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  as  required 
by  law,  and  shall,  under  the  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  appoint 
such  officers  as  may  be  necessary  to  keep  an  account  of  the  goods,  wares,  and 
merchandise  received  and  delivered  at  said  stores,  at  the  expense  of  said  party 
of  the  second  part  in  conformity  with  the  regulations  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. 

The  parties  of  the  first  part  further  agree  to  and  with  the  party  of  the  second 
part  that  they  will  pay  the  costs  of  transportation  of  all  goods  ordered  to  said 
stores  for  examination  for  and  during  the  existence  of  this  contract. 

And  the  party  of  the  second  part,  as  collector  of  the  port  of  Xew  York,  for 
and  in  consideration  of  the  premises,  and  of  the  several  mutual  covenants  and 
agreements  herein  contained  on  the  part  of  the  parties  of  the  first  part  to  be 
paid,  done,  and  performed,  has,  and  by  these  presents,  for  himself,  his  sucessors 
in  office,  and  assigns,  does  covenant,  promise,  and  agree  to  and  with  the  parties 
of  the  first  part,  and  with  their  heirs,  executors,  and  administrators  to  pay  them 
the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven  thousand  (137,000)  dollars  per  annum 
the  due  proportion  of  which  amount,  to  wit :  two  thousand  six  hundred  and 
thirty-four  sixty-one  one  hundredths  (2,634I^)  dollars  shall  be  paid  to  the 
parties  of  the  first  part  on  the  last  day  of  each  week  for  and  during  the  exist- 
ence of  this  contract,  and  while  the  same  shall  remain  in  full  force  and  virtue, 
and  be  binding  and  obligatory  upon  the  parties  contracting. 

And  it  is  further  covenanted  and  agreed  by  the  party  of  the  second  part 
that  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  will  collect  and  receive  from  the  owners 
or  consignees  of  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  which  may  be  sent  to  said 
stores  for  appraisement,  without  invoice,  or  for  appraisement  of  damage,  such 
sums  as  may  be  due  on  such  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  for  labor  and  car- 
tage, and  will  pay  such  sums  so  received  to  the  parties  of  the  first  part  on  the 
last  day  of  each  week  during  the  continuance  of  this  contract. 

The  parties  of  the  first  part  further  covenant  and  agree  to  and  with  the  said 
party  of  the  second  part  that,  in  the  reduction  by  them  of  the  force  now  em- 
ployed in  said  stores,  the  same  shall  be  so  reduced  that  a  proportion  of  such 
reduction,  not  to  exceed  one-fourth  part  thereof,  shall  be  made  in  each  week  for 
the  four  weeks  succeeding  the  entering  upon  the  execution  of  this  agreement. 
And  the  party  of  the  second  part  agrees  to  pay  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first 
part,  in  addition  to  the  sum  hereinbefore  agreed  to  be  paid  the  sum  of  three 
thousand  six  hundred  and  six  eighty-eight  one-hundrdths  (3,606^^)  dollars, 
payable  weekly,  in  four  equal  weekly  payments  of  nine  hundred  and  one 
seventy-two  one-hundredths  (901^$)  dollars  each. 

And  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  further  covenant  and  agree  to  and  with 
the  said  party  of  the  second  part  that,  in  the  employment  of  laborers  hereafter 
for  said  stores,  they  will  pay  them  the  same  rate  of  compensation  as  has  hereto- 
fore been  paid  to  the  laborers  employed  in  the  said  stores. 

And  the  parties  of  the  first  part  further  covenant  and  agree  to  and  with  said 
party  of  the  second  part  that,  in  case  of  the  loss  or  damage  of  any  goods,  wares, 
or  merchandise  which  may  be  received  at  said  stores  through  the  unfaithfulness, 
negligence,  or  inattention  of  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  or  of  persons  em- 
ployed by  them  in  and  about  the  execution  of  this  contract,  they  will  pay  and 
satisfy  the  owner  or  owners  of  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  all  such  loss 
or  damage  which  may  be  so  sustained,  or  to  which  they  may  be  put  by  reason 
of  such  unfaithfulness,  negligence,  or  inattention. 

And  the  parties  of  the  first  part  further  covenant  and  agree  that  whenever 
any  claim  shall  be  made  for  compensation  for  any  loss  or  damage,  as  aforesaid, 
the  collector  of  the  customs  shall  investigate  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the 
case,  and  if  he  shall  decide  that  the  same  occurred  through  the  negligence,  un- 


78 


TESTIMONY. 


faithfulness,  or  inattention  of  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  or  of  persons 
employed  by  them,  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  shall  forthwith  pay  the 
amount  so  decided  by  the  collector  to  be  due  to  the  owner  or  owners  of  the 
said  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  unless  the  parties  of  the  first  part  are  dissat- 
isfied with  the  decision  of  the  collector.  In  such  case,  they  may  appeal  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  whose  decision  shall  be  final  and  conclusive,  and  the 
amount  so  decided  by  him  to  be  due  to  the  owner  or  owners  of  the  merchan- 
dise for  such  loss  or  damage  shall  be  forthwith  paid  by  the  parties  of  the  first 
part ;  if  not  so  paid,  the  amount  shall  be  deducted  from  the  weekly  payments 
hereinbefore  provided  to  be  paid  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  by  the  col- 
lector of  customs.  It  is  understood  that  any  decision  of  the  collector  or  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  exonerating  the  parties  of  the  first  part,  will  not  release 
them  from  any  liability  that  may  be  legally  decided  against  them  by  the  courts. 

And  the  parties  of  the  first  part  further  covenant  and  agree  to  and  with  the 
said  party  of  the  second  part  that  he,  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  may 
employ  three  persons,  at  the  expense  of  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  to  be 
placed  in  said  stores  at  night,  and  have  the  care  thereof,  and  to  act  as  watch- 
men, to  protect  the  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  which  may  from  time  to  time 
be  placed  and  kept  therein ;  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  to  employ  at  least 
two  persons  to  act  as  watchmen,  to  be  stationed  without  said  stores. 

And  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  do  further  covenant  and  agree  to  and 
with  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  that  they  will  not  communicate,  either 
orally  or  otherwise,  any  information  which  they  may  obtain  in  the  performance 
of  this  contract,  or  otherwise,  to  any  person  not  attached  to  the  customs  or  rev- 
enue, except  such  as  may  be  necessary  to  aid  merchants  and  others  in  the  reg- 
ular daily  routine  of  business  passing  through  the  custom-house,  and  that  they 
will  not,  nor  will  any  person  in  their  employ,  accept  or  receive  any  fee,  reward, 
or  compensation  from  any  person  or  persons,  other  than  that  allowed  by  this 
contract,  for  any  service  they,  any,  or  either  of  them,  or  their  employes,  may 
render  in  and  about  the  execution  of  this  contract,  or  in  the  performance  of  any 
labor  or  services  therein  mentioned,  or  in  anywise  connected  therewith. 

And  it  is  mutually  stipulated  and  agreed  that,  in  case  the  said  parties  of  the 
first  part  shall  fail  to  comply  with  any  covenants  and  agreements  herein  con- 
tained on  their  part  to  be  kept  and  performed,  the  party  of  the  second  part,  or 
his  successor  in  office,  shall  at  his  option  terminate  this  agreement,  or  he  may 
employ  other  persons  to  execute  the  same  at  the  cost  and  expense  of  the  parties 
of  the  first  part. 

And  it  is  further  mutually  stipulated  and  agreed  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  may,  at  any  time  within  six  months  from  the  date  of  this  contract, 
annul  and  terminate  the  same,  if  he  shall  see  fit  so  to  do,  on  paying  to  the  par- 
ties of  the  first  part,  in  consideration  of  expenses  incurred  by  them,  a  sum  equal 
to  what  they  would  have  been  entitled  to  for  one  month  by  virtue  of  this  con- 
tract had  the  same  continued  in  force.  In  witness  whereof,  the  parties  of  the 
first  and  second  parts  have  hereunto  set  their  hands  and  seals  the  day  and  year 
first  above  written. 


WILLIAX  X.  McINTIRE. 

L. 

S. 

JXO.  C.  MATHER. 

L. 

s.' 

FRANCIS  M.  BIXBY. 

L. 

s/ 

JAMES  B.  CRAIG. 

L. 

s.' 

AUGUSTUS  SCHELL, 

L. 

s.' 

Collector. 


TESTIMONY. 


79 


Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of — (the  word  "  sixth,"  1st  line,  1st  page, 
written  over  an  erasure ;  the  words  "  fifth,"  "  September,"  14th  line,  2d  page, 
written  over  an  erasure  prior  to  the  execution  hereof) — 
Geo.  D.  Bayard. 

Treasury  Department,  August  27,  1859. 

Approved. 

HOWELL  COBB, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Contract  between  William  N.  Mclntire  and  others  and  the  United  States. 

Memorandum  of  an  agreement  made  this  first  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1859,  be- 
tween William  N.  Mclntire,  John  C.  Mather,  Francis  M.  Bixby,  and  James 
B.  Craig,  parties  of  the  first  part,  and  Augustus  Schell,  collector  of  the  port 
of  New  York,  acting  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  with  the  approval 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  party  of  the  second  part. 

Whereas  the  parties  hereto  did,  on  the  26th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1859,  enter 
into  an  agreement,  bearing  date  on  that  day,  by  which  the  party  of  the  second 
part  agreed  to  pay  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  sum  of  one  hundred 
and  thirty-seven  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  in  equal  payments  of  twenty-six 
hundred  and  sixty-one  dollars  and  sixty-one  cents,  in  consideration  of  the  per- 
formance of  certain  covenants  and  agreements  therein  to  be  kept  and  performed 
by  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part : 

And  whereas  it  has  been  agreed  between  the  parties  hereto  to  withdraw  from 
the  provisions  of  said  agreement  certain  persons  who  have  heretofore  been  paid 
as  laborers,  but  who  are,  in  fact,  acting  as  clerks,  messengers,  and  samplers,  and 
in  consideration  thereof  to  reduce  said  annual  payment  from  one  hundred  and 
thirty-seven  thousand  dollars  to  one  hundred  and  twenty-three  thousand  dollars, 
to  be  paid  in  equal  weekly  payments  of  twenty-three  hundred  and  sixty-five 
dollars  and  thirty-eight  cents  : 

Now  this  agreement  witnesseth,  that  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  do  hereby 
covenant  and  agree  to  and  with  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  for  and  in 
consideration  of  the  sum  of  one  dollar  to  them  paid,  that  they  will  well  and  truly 
keep,  fulfil,  and  perform  all  and  singular,  the  covenants  and  agreements  on  their 
part  to  be  kept  and  performed  according  to  the  terms,  provisions,  and  conditions 
of  said  agreement,  with  the  exception  of  the  payment  of  said  persons  so  employed 
as  messengers,  clerks,  and  samplers,  for  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
three  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  instead  of  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
seven  thousand  dollars,  therein  mentioned,  payable  in  equal  weekly  payments  of 
two  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  dollars  and  thirty-eight  cents.  And 
the  party  of  the  second  part,  in  consideration  of  the  premises,  and  of  the  cove- 
nants, conditions,  provisions,  and  agreements  to  be  kept,  fulfilled,  and  performed 
by  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  except  the  payment  by  them  of  the  laborers 
who  act  as  clerks,  messengers,  and  samplers,  at  said  appraisers'  stores,  as  therein 
mentioned  and  set  forth,  does  hereby  covenant  and  agree  to  pay  to  the  said  par- 
ties of  the  first  part  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-three  thousand  dollars 
per  annum,  in  equal  weekly  payments  of  two  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
five  dollars  and  thirty-eight  cents,  in  lieu  of  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
seven  thousand  dollars  in  said  agreement  specified.  And  the  parties  hereto  do 
hereby  ratify  and  confirm  the  said  original  agreement  in  all  other  respects. 


80 


TESTIMONY. 


In  witness  whereof,  the  parties  of  the  first  and  second  parts  have  hereunto  set 
their  hands  and  affixed  their  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

WM.  N.  McINTIRE.  [l.  s. 
JOHN  C.  MATHER.  l.  s. 
FRANCIS  M.  BIXBY.  [l.  s. 
JAMES  B.  CRAIG.  [l.  s. 
AUGUSTUS  SCHELL,    [l.  s. 

Collector. 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of — (the  word  three,  on  page  3,  line  3 
from  top,  written  over  erasure  before  the  execution  hereof ;  also  the  word  "  one," 
page  1,  line  15) — 

G.  HlLLNE. 

Treasury  Department, 

October  8,  1859. 

The  within  contract  is  approved. 

HOWELL  COBB, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


BOND. 

Theodore  Payne  and  John  G.  Schumaker  to  the  United  States. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  we,  Theodore  Payne  and  John  G. 
Schumaker,  are  held  and  firmly  bound  unto  the  United  States  of  America  in 
the  sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars,  lawful  money  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
payment  of  which,  well  and  truly  to  be  made  to  the  United  States,  we  bind 
ourselves,  our  heirs,  executors,  administrators,  and  assigns,  jointly  and  severally, 
by  these  presents,  as  witness  our  hands  and  seals  this  26th  day  of  August,  1859. 

The  condition  of  this  obligation  is  such,  that  if  William  N.  Mclntire,  John 
C.  Mather,  Francis  M.  Bixby,  and  James  B.  Craig,  or  either  of  them,  parties  of 
the  first  part  to  a  certain  indenture  made  this  26th  day  of  August,  1859,  by  and 
between  the  said  William  N.  Mclntire,  John  C.  Mather,  Francis  M.  Bixby,  and 
James  B.  Craig,  parties  of  the  first  part,  and  Augustus  Schell,  acting  as  collector 
of  the  customs,  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  with  the  approval 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  party  of  the  second  part,  shall  well  and  truly 
keep  and  perform  each  and  every  covenant  and  agreement  in  said  indenture 
specified,  then  this  obligation  to  be  void  and  of  no  eifect,  otherwise  to  remain  in 
full  force  and  virtue. 

Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered  this  26th  day  of  August,  1859. 

THEODORE  PAYNE. 
JOHN  G.  SCHUMAKER. 

In  presence  of — 

G.  W.  Cummings,  as  to  J.  G.  Schumaker. 
George  D.  Bayard,  as  to  Theodore  Payne. 

United  States  of  America,  Southern  District  of  New  York,  ss: 

On  the  depositions  hereto  attached  I  certify  that  the  sureties  to  the  above 
obligation  are  competent  security  for  the  performance  thereof. 

SAMUEL  R.  BETTS, 

United  States  Judge,  &c. 

New  York,  September  3,  1859. 


TESTIMONY. 


81 


Southern  District  of  New  York,  ss  : 

Theodore  Payne,  being  duly  sworn,  says  that  he  is  a  resident  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  in  the  southern  district  of  New  York,  and  that  he  is  worth  the  sum 
of  thirty  thousand  dollars  ($30,000)  over  and  above  all  his  just  debts  and 
liabilities. 

THEODORE  PAYNE. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  before  me  this  30th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1859. 
[l.  s.]  THOS.  B.  OAKLEY,  Notary  Public. 

Southern  District  of  New  York,  ss: 

John  G.  Schumaker,  being  duly  sworn,  says  that  he  is  a  resident  of  the  city 
of  Brooklyn,  in  the  southern  district  of  New  York,  and  that  he  is  worth  the 
sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars  ($30,000)  over  and  above  all  his  just  debts  and 
liabilities. 

J.  G.  SCHUMAKER. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  this  31st  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1859. 
[l.  s.]  CHARLES  H.  THOMSON,  Notary  Public. 

POWER  OF  ATTORNEY,  DATED  MAY  11,  1861. 

William  N.  Mclntire,  John  C.  Mather,  Francis  M.  Bixby,  and  James  B. 
Craig,  to  Luther  B.  Wyrnan  and  Simon  Stevens. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  we,  "William  N.  Mclntire,  John  C. 
Mather,  Francis  M.  Bixby,  and  James  B.  Craig,  all  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
for  value  received,  have  made,  constituted,  and  appointed,  and  by  these  presents 
do  make,  constitute,  and  appoint,  Luther  B.  Wyman  and  Simon  Stevens,  of  the 
same  place,  our  true  and  lawful  attorneys,  irrevocable  for  us  and  each  of  us,  in 
the  name,  place,  and  stead  of  us,  and  each  of  us,  to  ask,  demand,  collect,  and 
receive  all  moneys  to  grow  due  to  us,  or  either  of  us,  from  and  after  this  day, 
under  or  by  virtue  of  a  certain  contract  between  us  and  Augustus  Schell,  col- 
lector of  the  port  of  New  York,  for  the  performance  of  labor  at  the  public  stores 
of  the  United  States  in  the  port  of  New  York,  dated  August  26,  1859,  and  a 
certain  other  contract,  supplemental  thereto,  between  the  same  parties,  and  re- 
lating to  the  same  subject,  dated  October  1,  1858,  and  to  give  full  receipts, 
discharges,  and  acquittances  for  such  moneys,  and  generally  to  do  and  transact 
all  business  arising  under  or  connected  with  the  said  contracts,  or  our  rights  and 
duties  under  the  same ;  hereby  giving  and  granting  unto  our  said  attorneys  full 
power  and  authority  to  do  and  perform  all  and  every  act  and  thing  whatsoever 
requisite  and  necessary  to  be  done  in  and  about  the  premises,  as  fully,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  as  we  jointly  or  severally,  or  either  of  us,  might  or  could 
do  if  personally  present,  with  full  power  of  substitution  and  revocation ;  hereby 
ratifying  and  confirming  all  that  our  said  attorneys  or  their  substitutes  shall 
lawfully  do  or  cause  to  be  done  by  virtue  hereof. 

In  witness  whereof,  wre  have  hereunto  set  our  hands  and  seals  the  11th  day 
of  May,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-one. 

WM.  N.  McINTIRE.      [l.  s. 

JOHN  C.  MATHER.      [l.  s. 

FRANCIS  M.  BIXBY.     l.  s. 

JAMES  B.  CRAIG.       [l.  s/ 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of — (the  words  "due  and,"  on  first  page, 
erased,  and  the  words  "from  and  after  this  day"  interlined,  before  execution) — 
Robert  J.  Mitchell. 

Part  iii  6 


82 


TESTIMONY. 


State  of  New  York, 

City  and  County  of  New  York  : 

On  this  thirteenth  day  of  May,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
sixty-one,  before  me  personally  came  William  N.  Mclntire,  John  C.  Mather, 
Francis  M.  Bixby,  and  James  B.  Craig,  to  me  known  to  be  the  individuals 
described  in  and  who  executed  the  foregoing  instrument,  and  severally 
acknowledged  that  they  executed  the  same. 

ROBERT  MITCHELL, 

Notary  Public  in  New  York  City. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  12,  1862. 

Sir  :  I  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  1st  instant,  enclosing  a 
copy  of  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  having  reference  to  the 
existing  contract  for  labor,  &c,  performed  at  the  appraisers'  stores.  You  state 
that  a  copy  of  the  contract  will  be  furnished  from  the  files  of  the  department. 
It  was  made  by  my  predecessor,  with  the  approbation  of  the  then  head  of  the 
treasury,  and  expires  on  the  5th  September  next.  It  has  no  reference  to 
"  general-order"  goods. 

In  regard  to  the  second  branch  of  the  resolution,  I  have  to  state  that  no 
action  has  been  taken  by  me  on  this  contract. 

The  labor  is  performed  under  the  direction  of  Francis  M.  Bixby,  one  of  the 
original  contractors,  and  the  weekly  payments  are  made  to  Luther  B.  Wyman 
and  Simon  Stevens,  as  attorneys  of  William  N.  Mclntire,  John  C.  Mather, 
F.  M.  Bixby,  and  James  B.  Craig,  the  original  contractors. 

The  stores  where  the  goods  are  stored,  upon  which  the  labor  is  performed 
under  the  contract  referred  to,  are  owned  by  Asa  Fitch,  but  are  leased  to  the 
government  by  Sturgis,  Shaw  &  Co.,  at  an  annual  rent  of  $35,500. 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

HIRAM  BARNEY,  Collector. 

Hon.  S.  P.  Chase, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Question.  What  was  the  purport  of  the  power  of  attorney  ? 
Answer.  To  draw  the  money. 

Question.  What  was  given  to  the  original  parties  to  this  contract 
for  this  transfer  of  it  to  Wyman  and  yourself? 

Answer.  Twenty  thousand  dollars,  is  my  recollection. 
Question.  Who  furnished  the  money? 

Answer.  I  furnished  one-half.  For  the  other  half,  Mr.  William 
Allen  Butler  gave  his  check. 

Question.  Tell  us  how  much  money  in  the  aggregate  has  been  paid 
over,  under  this  contract,  to  Mr.  Butler,  or  to  his  account,  or  to  Mr. 
George  W.  Parsons,  his  law  partner,  for  account  of  Mr.  Butler. 

Answer.  Knowing,  in  connexion  with  Mr.  Wyman,  that  this  con- 
tract was  taken  from  the  government  in  good  faith,  and  without  fraud, 
and  in  every  one  of  its  particulars  executed  in  the  same  good  faith,  I 
decline  to  state  whether  I  made  profit  or  loss  in  the  conduct  of  my 
business. 

Question.  Do  you  decline  to  answer  the  question,  how  much,  under 
this  arrangement,  has  been  paid  to  Mr.  William  Allen  Butler,  or  to 


TESTIMONY. 


83 


his  account,  or  to  Mr.  George  W.  Parsons,  his  law  partner,  for  the 
account  of  Mr.  Butler  ? 

Answer.  I  decline,  for  the  reason  that  the  government  has  no  right 
to  inquire  into  my  private  affairs. 

Question.  You  say  you  held  this  contract  from  May  11, 1861,  until 
its  expiration  in  September,  1862.  State  the  net  profits  of  that  con- 
tract during  that  time. 

Answer.  As  an  answer  to  that  question,  I  refer  you  to  my  previous 
answer. 

Question.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  decline  to  answer  that  question  ? 
Answer.  In  that  way,  I  do. 

Question.  To  enable  the  government  to  ascertain  whether  the  con- 
tract system  is  a  better  way  to  obtain  the  performance  of  this  labor 
than  the  employment  of  men  by  the  day  by  the  officers  of  the  custom- 
house, please  state,  in  the  first  place,  the  amount  received  by  you 
from  the  government,  under  the  contract,  between  the  11th  of  May, 
1861,  and  the  expiration  of  the  contract  in  September,  1862;  secondly, 
the  cost  of  executing  that  contract  during  that  time;  and  thirdly,  as 
a  consequence  of  the  two  other  questions,  the  net  profits  of  the  con- 
tract. 

Answer.  By  the  terms  of  the  contract,  the  government  was  to  give 
us  at  the  rate  of  $123,000  a  year,  payable  weekly,  which  sum  we  re- 
ceived; and  I  will  undertake  to  give  bail  to  perform  all  the  conditions 
stipulated  in  that  contract  for  $2,5,000  less  than  the  sum  therein  j)aid. 
I  consider  the  labor  contract  the  cheaper  and  more  safe  mode  for  the 
government — eheaper,  because,  if  in  the  hands  of  the  collector,  mem- 
bers of  Congress  and  other  individuals  urge  upon  him  the  appoint- 
ment of  more  men  than  are  necessary  for  the  performance  of  the  work; 
and  because,  if  he  refuses,  they  might  threaten  him  with  congressional 
investigation.  The  cost  of  executing  such  a  contract  would  depend 
upon  the  prudence  of  its  management. 

Question.  What  was  the  actual  cost  of  executing  that  contract  ? 

Answer.  I  decline  stating,  for  the  reasons  already  given. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  it  was  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  now,  without  referring  to  my  books. 
Question.  Can  you  tell  by  referring  to  your  books  ? 
Answer.  I  believe  I  could. 

Question.  Will  you  refer  to  your  books  and  answer  the  question  ? 

Answer.  I  will  refer  to  my  books.  I  desire  time  to  reflect  in  refer- 
ence to  the  above  question  until  to-morrow  morning. 

The  witness,  at  his  own  request,  was  here  excused  until  to-morrow 
morning. 


New  York,  December  23,  1862. 

Simon  Stevens  recalled : 

Question.  Now,  Mr.  Stevens,  we  put  to  you  the  question  we  put 
yesterday.  How  much  money,  in  the  aggregate,  has  been  paid  over, 
under  the  labor  contract,  to  Mr.  Wm.  Allen  Butler,  or  to  his  account, 


84 


TESTIMONY. 


or  to  Mr.  Geo.  W.  Parsons,  his  law  partner,  for  account  of  Mr. 
Butler? 

Answer.  I  have  previously  answered  the  question. 
Question.  Will  you  give  any  further  answer  to  the  question  ? 
Answer.  I  refer  to  my  answer  above  as  a  full  answer  to  that  question. 
Question.  Say  whether  you  will  give  any  further  answer  or  not. 
Answer.  I  decline  to  give  any  further  answer  than  is  stated  ahove 
in  my  testimony. 

Question.  You  say  you  held  this  contract  from  May  11,  1861,  until 
its  expiration,  by  its  own  terms,  September  5,  1862.  State  the  net 
profits  of  that  contract  during  that  time. 

Answer.  I  repeat  my  former  answer  to  the  same  question,  which  is 
as  follows  :  Knowing,  in  connexion  with  Mr.  Wyman,  that  the  con- 
tract was  taken  from  the  government  in  good  faith  and  without  fraud, 
and  in  every  one  of  its  particulars  executed  in  the  same  good  faith,  I 
decline  to  state  whether  I  made  profit  or  loss  in  the  conduct  of  my 
business. 

Question.  Do  you  decline  to  give  any  further  answer  to  the  question  ? 
Answer.  I  have  no  further  answer  to  make. 

The  examination  of  the  witness  was  here  suspended  by  order  of  the 
committee. 


New  York,  December  22,  1862. 

Isaac  Henderson  sworn : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 
Answer.  In  Brooklyn. 
Question.  What  is  your  business? 
Answer.  I  am  navy  agent  at  New  York. 
Question.  How  long  have  held  that  office? 
Answer.  Since  May,  1861. 

Question.  What  amount  of  money  have  you  received  by  virtue  of 
your  office  during  that  time  ? 

Answer.  I  have  received  at  the  rate  of  $3,000  a  year. 

Question.  State  what  other  sources  of  revenue  there  is  to  you  out- 
side of  your  salary,  if  any. 

Answer.  I  have  received,  perhaps,  five  or  six  hundred  dollars  thus 
far  from  certifying  to  certificates  of  persons  who  make  bids,  as  to  their 
responsibility. 

Question.  It  has  been  the  uniform  practice  in  your  office  to  receive 
those  fees  ? 

Answer.  It  has,  so  far  as  I  am  informed. 

Question.  How  much  do  you  charge  each  person? 

Answer.  The  charge  is  not  uniform  ;  sometimes  it  is  half  a  dollar, 
sometimes  a  dollar,  and  sometimes  two  dollars.  Parties  frequently 
do  not  ask  what  the  charge  is.  It  is  an  accommodation  to  them,  and 
perhaps  they  will  put  down  a  dollar  or  two  dollars  for  it. 

Question.  It  will  amount  to  from  four  to  six  hundred  dollars  a  year  ? 

Answer.  About  that. 


TESTIMONY 


85 


Question.  Have  you  had  anything  to  do  in  relation  to  the  charter 
ing  and  purchasing  of  vessels  ? 

Answer.  No  further  than  that  I  do  sometimes  charter  vessels  when 
they  are  desired  for  sending  to  the  G-ulf  with  provisions. 

Question.  Have  you  had  anything  to  do  with  chartering  vessels  for 
the  different  naval  expeditions  ? 

Answer.  Nothing  at  all. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  in  relation  to  those  charters  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  State  the  general  duties  of  your  office. 

Answer.  I  am  almost  entirely  a  disbursing  officer.  I  pay  for  the 
vessels  which  are  bought  for  the  Navy  Department  at  the  port  of  New 
York.    I  pay  all  contractors'  bills  for  goods  delivered  at  this  station. 

Question.  Your  office  is  necessarily  connected  with  the  navy  yard? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Who  makes  the  contractsfor  supplying  this  navy  yard? 
Answer.  They  are  made  by  the  different  bureaus  at  Washington. 
Question.  You  have  no  authority  in  the  premises  beyond  paying  the 
bills  ? 

Answer.  That  is  all,  with  the  exception  that  I  sometimes  purchase 
needed  articles  which  may  have  been  omitted  in  the  contracts.  The 
contracts  for  supplies  of  the  various  navy  yards  are  made  by  the 
bureaus  in  Washington. 


New  York,  December  23,  1862. 

George  F.  Betts  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  this  city. 

Question.  What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  Clerk  of  the  United  States  district  court. 

Question.  Please  state  the  amount  of  fees  received  by  you  during 
the  years  1860  and  1861. 

Answer.  I  present  a  statement  which  shows  the  amount.  It  is  as 
follows : 

Statement  of  fees  and  expenses  in  the  clerk's  office  of  the  United  States 
district  court  for  the  southern  district  of  New  York, 

1860. 

Copyright   $2,355  65 

Admiralty,  common  law,  per  diem,  and  miscellaneous...      7,393  98 

9,749  63 

Expenses   9,687  61 


Surplus  paid  to  government, 


62  02 


86 


TESTIMONY. 


1861. 

Copyright   $1,411  50 

Admiralty,  common  law,  per  diem,  and  miscellaneous...      8,607  77 

10,019  27 

Expenses   9,792  63 

Surplus  paid  to  government   226  64 


1862— first  six  months. 

Copyright   $962  00 

Admiralty,  common  law,  per  diem,  and  miscellaneous...      4,408  50 

5,370  50 

Expenses   5,032  05 

Surplus  paid  to  government   338  45 


Question.  Are  these  the  only  amounts  received  by  you  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  is  the  limit  of  your  salary? 
Answer.  $3,500. 

Question.  Do  you  receive  anything  from  confiscation  of  property, 
or  from  prize  money  ? 
Answer.  Nothing. 

Question.  What  is  done  with  that  money  ? 

Answer.  I  receive  clerk  fees  in  those  suits,  as  I  do  in  other  cases, 
but  all  the  money  from  prize  cases  is  paid  into  the  United  States 
treasury. 

Question.  You  receive  the  fees  allowed  by  law? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  which  you  give  the  government  credit  for  in  your 
statement? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  I  perceive  that  in  1860  you  credited  the  government  with 
$2,355  65  for  copyright.    What  does  that  mean? 

Answer.  I  am  required  to  specify  and  keep  distinct  the  copyright 
from  other  fees. 

Question.  You  specify,  as  another  source  of  fees,  "  admiralty,  com- 
mon law,  and  miscellaneous,"  amounting  to  $7,393  98,  which  with 
the  other  item  amounts  to  $9,749  63.  Are  those  all  the  fees  you  re- 
ceived by  virtue  of  your  office  during  that  time  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  state  the  expenses  at  $9,687  61.  Of  what  items  is 
that  expense  account  made  up  ? 

Answer.  The  two  larger  items  are  my  own  salary,  $3,500,  and  clerk- 
hire,  for  which  I  am  allowed  $5,500. 

Question.  What  is  that  clerk-hire  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


87 


Answer.  I  have  six  clerks. 

Question.  Cannot  you  get  along  with  less  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  can  hardly  get  along  with  that  number. 

Question.  What  is  the  salary  of  your  respective  clerks  ? 

Answer.  The  highest,  that  of  my  deputy,  is  $1,500  ;  those  of  the 
others  range  along  at  $1,200,  $1,000,  $720,  and  $600. 

Question.  In  1860  how  much  surplus  did  you  pay  to  the  gov- 
ernment ? 

Answer.  $62  02. 

Question.  In  1861  how  much  ? 

Answer.  $226  64. 

Question.  How  much  in  1862  ? 

Answer.  During  the  first  six  months  of  this  year  I  paid  $338  45. 

Question.  Your  business,  then,  must  have  greatly  increased  ? 

Answer.  It  has.  That  has  been  occasioned  by  the  prize  business. 
Besides  the  items  of  expense  I  have  given  you,  are  stationery,  fuel, 
and  matters  of  that  kind. 

Question.  Who  fixes  the  salaries  of  your  clerks  ? 

Answer.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  examined  into  that  matter, 
and  fixed  the  salaries  ? 

Question.  What  Secretary  of  the  Interior  ? 

Answer.  Secretary  McClelland,  of  Michigan. 

Question.  Have  the  salaries  remained  as  he  fixed  them  ever  since? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  do  these  amounts  of  surplus,  which  you  have  stated 
you  returned  to  the  treasury  yearly,  compare  with  the  amounts  so  re- 
turned during  the  preceding  five  years? 

Answer.  There  has  generally  been  a  small  surplus,  but  it  has  never 
before  been  as  much  as  during  the  first  six  months  of  this  year. 

Question.  Do  you  receive  any  emoluments  of  any  kind  whatever,  by 
virtue  of  your  office,  except  what  you  have  already  stated  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 


New  York,  December  23,  1862. 

Kenneth  G.  White  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  New  York. 

Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  I  am  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
southern  district  of  New  York. 

Question.  What  amount  of  money  has  been  received  by  you  as  com- 
pensation during  the  years  1859,  1860,  and  1861? 

Answer.  1  have  here  a  statement  which  shows  the  amounts  of 
money  received  by  me  by  virtue  of  my  office  during  those  years,  and 
I  submit  it  as  a  part  of  my  testimony. 

The  following  is  the  statement : 


88  TESTIMONY. 

Kenneth  G%  White's  statement ,  semi-annually,  for  the  years  1859,  1860, 


and  1861. 

From  January  1  to  June  30,  1859  : 

Receipts  of  office   $3,600  80 

Disbursements,  including  clerk-hire   1,270  11 

2,330  77 

Maximum  compensation   1,750  00 

Paid  to  assistant  United  States  treasurer   580  77 


From  July  1  to  December  31,  1859  : 

Receipts  of  office   $2,958  54 

Disbursements,  including  clerk-hire   1,250  18 

1,708  36 

Maximum  compensation  by  law   1,750  00 

Deficit                            ,   48  64 

Total  paid  into  the  treasury   532  13 


From  January  1  to  June  30,  1860  : 

Receipts  of  office,  (earned  and  received)   $3,413  50 

Disbursements,  including  clerk-hire  1,357  05 

2,056  45 

Maximum  compensation  by  law   1,750  00 

306  45 

From  July  1  to  December  31,  1860 : 

Amount  earned  and  received   $2,870  64 

Disbursements,  including  clerk-hire   1,353  48 

1,517  16 

Maximum  compensation  by  law   1,750  00 

Deficit   232  84 

June  8, 1861. — Deposited  with  assistant  treasurer  surplus 

earnings  of  1860   109  06 


TESTIMONY.  89 

From  January  1  to  June  30,  1861: 

Amount  earned  and  received   $3,180  IT 

Disbursements,  including  clerk-hire     1,377  06 

1,803  11 

Maximum  compensation  by  law   1,750  00 

53  11 

From  July  1  to  December  31,  1861 : 

Amount  earned  and  received   $3,151  06 

Disbursements,  including  clerk-hire   1,465  67 

1,685  39 

Maximum  compensation  by  law  <   1,750  00 

64  61 

Paid  into  the  treasury  1859   $532  13 

Paid  into  the  treasury  1860  ■   109  06 

641  19 

Deposited  in  treasury  1861   11  50 

Total  amount  paid  into  the  treasury  in  three  years   619  69 


Question.  What  is  the  amount  of  your  salary? 
Answer.  $3,500. 

Question.  Does  this  statement  show  a  full  and  correct  account  of  all 
moneys  you  have  received,  and  the  surplus  you  have  paid  to  the  gov- 
ernment ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  received  any  other  moneys  in  any  way,  shape, 
or  manner,  by  virtue  of  your  office,  during  that  time  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  many  clerks  have  you? 
Answer.  Three. 

Question.  How  much  are  they  allowed? 

Answer.  Up  to  the  1st  of  January,  1860, 1  think  it  was,  the  amount 
allowed  me  was  $1,750  a  year,  though  I  actually  paid  out  for  that 
purpose  that  year  $1,916.  I  then  made  application  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  Mr.  Thompson,  to  allow  me  an  increase,  and  $500 
more  was  allowed,  which  made  the  whole  allowance  up  to  $2,416  a 
year. 

Question.  Who  fixes  the  number  of  clerks  you  have? 
Answer.  The  Secretary  fixes  the  amount  to  be  allowed  for  clerk- 
hire,  and  leaves  me  to  procure  clerks  as  best  I  can. 
Question.  And  you  fix  the  prices  paid  to  them? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Does  what  you  have  charged  in  your  statement  as  ex- 
penses of  your  office  include  clerk-hire? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


90 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  And  that  amount  has  been  actually  paid  for  that  purpose? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  receive  any  emoluments  from  any  source  what- 
ever, as  clerk  of  the  court,  except  those  contained  in  your  statement? 
Answer.  No_,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  in  your  official  capacity? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 


New  York,  January  2,  1863. 

Sam'l  Churchman  sworn : 

Question.  State  your  present  residence. 

Answer.  Burlington,  New  Jersey. 

Question.  Have  you  any  information  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of 
vessels  by  the  War  Department  for  transportation  and  other  purposes  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  Not  by  contract  with  the  War  Department,  but 
through  Mr.  John  Tucker. 

Question.  From  what  time  does  this  knowledge  bear  date  ? 

Answer.  I  think  from  May,  1861. 

Question.  With  what  person  connected  with  the  government,  or 
acting  for  the  government,  did  you  first  have  any  communication  in 
regard  to  this  matter  ? 

Answer.  I  will  state,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  April,  1861,  I  went 
to  Washington  with  a  letter  from  E.  Walter  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  and  also  a  letter  from  Hon.  Hiram  Walbridge.  The  following 
are  the  letters : 

"  Office  of  the  Mercantile  Mutual  Insurance  Company, 

"New  York,  April  6,  1861. 
"  The  bearer,  Samuel  Churchman,  has  been  known  to  me  personally 
for  some  years  past.  From  his  great  experience  in  the  freighting 
and  vessel  business,  both  in  this  country  and  elsewhere,  (having 
visited  many  ports  in  Europe,  South  America,  West  Indies,  &c.,)  he 
has  acquired  a  general  knowledge  of  business,  which,  combined  with 
much  energy  and  ability,  would,  in  my  opinion,  qualify  him  to  serve 
your  department  acceptably  in  the  procurement  of  vessels  to  transport 
supplies  for  the  use  of  the  government. 
'  '  Very  respectfully, 

"  ELWOOD  WALTER. 

"  Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

"  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Washingto7i." 

"New  York,  April  23,  1861. 

"Dear  Brother:  This  will  serve  to  introduce  to  you  my  friend, 
Samuel  Churchman,  of  Burlington,  New  Jersey,  who  goes  to  Wash- 
ington city  to-day,  and  is  in  some  way  connected  with  the  present 
administration.    If  you  can  in  any  way  serve  him,  do  so. 

"Mr.  Churchman  has  most  extended  experience  in  ship  matters,  and 
brings  to  the  discharge  of  any  trust  ability,  integrity,  and  a  thorough 
business  education.  Any  assistance  rendered  him  will  be  appreciated 
by  your  brother, 

"H.  D.  WALBRIDGE." 


TESTIMONY.  91 

Question.  State  how  you  became  acquainted  with  Mr.  Tucker. 

Answer.  A  mutual  friend  of  Mr.  Tucker  and  myself,  John  B.  A. 
Allen,  told  me  that  in  conversation  with  Tucker  he  had  recommended 
Tucker  to  send  for  me  as  a  person  familiar  with  steamers,  which  he 
was  not,  and  that  I  might  save  him  some  trouble  if  he  would  listen 
to  my  advice.  A  few  days  after  that  Mr.  Allen  went  up  to  introduce 
me  to  Mr.  Tucker.  Mr.  Tucker  received  me  courteously,  and  invited 
me  into  his  private  office.  He  said  he  did  not  know  as  he  could  do 
anything  for  me  in  particular,  but  if  I  could  be  of  any  service  to  him 
he  would  be  obliged  to  me.  I  told  him  that  I  did  not  seek  compen- 
sation, but  at  the  same  time  if,  after  he  found  that  I  could  get  vessels 
of  the  same  quality  and  capacity  at  forty  per  cent,  less  than  he  was 
paying,  he  thought  I  had  earned  a  brokerage,  I  would  be  glad  to  take 
it.  I  told  him  I  thought  he  was  paying  about  that  much  more  than 
a  fair  value,  and  that  I  was  willing  to  base  my  compensation  upon 
that  standard.  At  that  time  Mr.  Tucker  considered  himself  an  agent 
of  the  department,  and  supposed  he  would  have  a  commission  from 
the  government  instead  of  from  the  ship-owners.  He  never  exacted, 
but  refused  to  take,  commissions  from  the  owners  of  vessels.  So  much 
noise  had  been  made  about  the  purchases  of  Mr.  Morgan,  and  his  com- 
missions, that  he  thought  that  out  of  the  question. 

I  made  repeated  visits  there,  and  Mr.  Tucker  was  in  the  habit  of 
reading  me  letters  which  he  had  received  from  different  parties. 
Among  others,  I  recollect  distinctly  a  letter  from  Thayer  &  Peabody, 
offering  him  the  Eastern  State  for  $50,000.  I  told  him  I  knew  her 
history;  that  she  was  a  miserable  affair  at  best ;  had  had  hard  run- 
ning, was  losing  money;  that  I  had  no  doubt  she  would  be  sold  low, 
and  that  I  was  certain  she  was  not  worth  over  $25,000.  He  refused 
at  that  time  to  buy  her,  as  he  told  me.  Subsequently,  when  Burn- 
side's  expedition  was  fitting  out,  he  showed  me  a  letter  from  Burn- 
side — an  open  letter — which  Thayer  &  Peabody  had  sent  to  Tucker, 
urging  him  to  buy  the  boat  for  $40,000.  Tucker  remarked  that  he 
was  of  no  use  as  agent  while  he  was  positively  ordered  to  make  such 
transactions  as  that.  He  bought  the  boat,  but  1  think  he  got  it  for 
less  in  consequence  of  that  conversation.  He  told  me  he  did  not  in- 
tend to  give  over  $30,000  for  her,  after  what  had  passed,  but  he  might 
be  compelled  to  give  more. 

I  was  about  to  say  that  the  result  of  my  interview  with  Tucker  was, 
that  on  the  11th  of  September  he  wrote  me  a  note,  in  which  he  told 
me  he  expected  he  should  want  some  vessels  in  a  few  days  ;  that  he 
had  just  purchased  two  vessels  in  New  York,  which  was  the  extent  of 
his  orders  at  that  time,  but  that  he  expected  in  a  few  days  an  order  for 
a  large  number,  and  asked  me  to  bring  him  the  names  of  such  vessels 
as  I  thought  suitable.  I  did  so,  and  mentioned  the  names  of  several 
boats.  He  said  he  had  not  received  positive  orders;  that  he  was  going  to 
Washington  that  day,  I  think.  1  then  mentioned  to  him  that  there 
was  one  boat  in  the  vicinity  of  Philadelphia — theSuwanee — which,  if 
he  thought  necessary,  I  would  go  down  and  look  at.  I  went  down  to 
look  at  her,  and  on  that  trip  I  met  Mr.  Tucker  on  the  cars  returning 
from  Washington.  I  got  on  the  cars  at  Wilmington.  He  seemed 
very  much  annoyed,  and  said  he  had  been  very  badly  treated  ;  that 


92 


TESTIMONY. 


he  had  been  invited  to  General  Scott's  quarters  to  an  interview  re- 
lating to  the  fitting  out  of  these  vessels,  and  that  General  Scott  hav- 
ing made  some  remarks  about  the  quality  of  the  vessels  and  the  depth 
of  water  they  should  draw,  General  Sherman  interposed,  with  the  re- 
mark that  it  was  too  late  to  make  remarks  about  the  draught  of  the 
vessels  ;  that  he  was  commander,  and  had  thought  it  necessary  to  send 
his  quartermaster,  Saxton,  to  New  York,  and  that  Saxton  had  advised 
him  that  he  had  taken  up  all  the  vessels  to  he  had. 

I  called  upon  Mr.  Tucker  a  day  or  two  after,  and  asked  him  for  a 
list  of  the  prices  paid  for  those  vessels.  He  handed  me  a  list.  1  said 
it  was  a  shocking  business,  and  he  consoled  me  by  saying  there  was 
one  consolation,  and  that  was  that  they  were  all  taken  for  a  very  short 
period,  not  to  exceed  21  days.  I  then  called  his  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Sturges  had  asked  me  to  charter  the  Cahawbee  of  him,  and 
stating  that  the  government  could  have  her  for  a  limited  period  for 
$600  a  day,  or  for  a  lengthened  period  at  the  rate  of  $12,000  per 
month,  which  was  really  a  fair  price,  as  she  was  a  large  and  burden- 
some ship.  When  he  gave  me  the  list  1  looked  over  it  and  made  a 
memorandum  of  what  I  thought,  based  upon  my  familiarity  with  ships 
and  my  experience  in  chartering  them,  would  be  a  fair  price  for  the 
ships.  Two  or  three  weeks  after  that,  and  after  repeated  conversations 
with  Tucker,  he  gave  me  a  note  to  Secretary  Cameron,  which  is  as 
follows : 

"  Philadelphia,  October  28,  1861. 
"  Dear  SiR :  This  will  be  presented  to  you  by  Mr.  Samuel  Church- 
man, of  this  city,  who  is  very  familiar  with  transportation  by  sea, 
which  business  he  thoroughly  understands;  and  he  desires  an  oppor- 
tunity to  submit  his  views  to  you,  especially  with  reference  to  the 
army  movements  by  water,  on  which  subject  you  will  find  him  most 
intelligent. 

"  Yours,  very  respectfully, 

"  JOHN  TUCKER. 

"  Hon.  S.  Cameron." 

I  went  to  Washington  with  that  note,  and  failed  to  get  access  even 
to  Mr.  Scott,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Navy.  I  returned,  and  men- 
tioned to  Mr.  Tucker  that  it  was  all  nonsense  for  me  to  try  to  do  any- 
thing, and  he  said  that  appeared  to  be  the  way  matters  went.  He 
mentioned  also  to  me  that  young  Mr.  Roberts  had  been  down  to  Wash- 
ington, and  telegraphed  to  his  father  that  Mr.  Scott  had  told  him  that 
the  wants  of  the  government  would  embrace  everything  that  was 
in  existence,  or  something  to  that  effect ;  and,  said  Tucker,  "  What 
can  you  expect  after  that  but  that  just  what  they  choose  to  ask  we 
give,  and  nothing  less."  Mr.  Tucker  was  so  annoyed  at  this  thing 
that  at  one  time  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Secretary  Cameron  tendering  his 
resignation — which  letter  he  read  to  me — stating  that  he  was  placed 
in  a  false  position  ;  that  these  things  were  going  on  continually  with- 
out his  having  the  power  to  prevent  them.  1  had  repeated  conversa- 
tions with  Mr.  Tucker,  the  last  of  which  was  at  the  Astor  House, 
New  York.  He  then  told  me  he  was  about  to  charter  those  three  steam- 


TESTIMONY. 


93 


ships  running  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York.  I  inquired  what 
price  he  was  to  pay.  He  said  that  Mr.  Perkins,  the  agent,  was  indig- 
nant ;  that  the  Boston  had  earned  $40,000  already  ;  that  he  would 
not  stir  until  that  was  paid,  and  then  the  government  must  take  the 
vessels  for  ninety  day  at  $2,400  a  days,  or  it  should  not  have  them 
at  all. 

A  day  or  two  after  that  I  went  to  Philadelphia  and  mentioned  this 
circumstance  to  Henry  W.  Workman,  and  he  replied,  "  That  is  very 
remarkable  ;  I  have  been  trying  for  a  long  time  to  charter  those 
boats  to  the  government  for  $1,200  a  day.  The  owners  also  author- 
ized me  to  sell  them  at  a  fair  price  to  the  government/' 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Tucker  I  said,  "  Why  do  you  not  seize  the  boats  ?" 
He  said  that  he  had  telegraphed  to  General  Meigs  that  the  prices 
were  excessive,  and  had  received,  in  reply,  that  the  government  could 
not  wait,  and  they  must  have  the  vessels.  He  said  there  was  no  help 
for  it,  as  transports  were  wanted.  I  said,  "Tucker,  you  can  get 
transports."  He  said,  "  I  cannot  get  transports  ;  they  aie  not  to  be 
had,  and  if  you  know  how  to  do  it,  I  would  like  you  to  show  me."  I 
went  down  to  the  office  of  Mr.  Kunhardt  &  Co.,  and  told  them  our 
War  Department  was  short  of  transports  ;  that  troops  were  waiting, 
and  asked  them  if  they  would  not  like  me  to  offer  one  of  their  boats — 
the  Saxonia.  After  some  refusal,  in  the  course  of  fifteen  or  twenty 
minutes  I  told  them  I  thought  it  would  be  a  benefit  to  them  here- 
after to  offer  this  courtesy,  and  they  did  so.  I  took  Tucker  down,  at 
his  request,  and  introduced  him  to  them.  That  boat  was  about  3,000 
tons,  British  measure,  with  very  extensive  facilities  for  cooking,  and 
was  commanded  by  an  old  Crimean  captain,  which  was  the  reason  I 
was  so  anxious  to  get  her.  Tucker  then  said  he  would  telegraph  im- 
mediately to  Washington  to  General  Meigs,  offering  the  boat,  and 
would  let  the  parties  know  that  afternoon  at  five  o'clock.  From  that 
time  to  this  he  never  has  informed  them.  I  waited  three  or  four  days, 
and  persuaded  them  to  hold  the  matter  open.  I  went  to  Philadelphia, 
went  to  Tucker's  house,  and  tried  to  get  an  answer,  but  could  not, 
and  was  obliged  to  inform  Kunhardt  &  Co.  that  I  could  do  nothing. 

The  same  morning  I  also  went  to  Francis  McDonald  &  Co.,  of  this 
city,  agents  of  a  line  of  Scotch  boats,  and  they  offered  to  the  govern- 
ment the  United  Kingdom,  which  was  then  off  Cape  Pace  ;  stop  her 
at  Portland  ;  take  out  her  New  York  goods  ;  take  on  board  the  12th 
Maine  regiment,  and  take  them  to  New  Orleans  without  delay.  Mr. 
McDonald  telegraphed  me  in  Philadelphia  immediately  upon  the  arri- 
val of  the  boat  in  Portland.  I  called  to  see  Tucker,  and  he  had  gone 
to  Washington,  I  think.  I  went  on  to  Washington,  and  found  he 
had  returned.  I  am  not  positive  as  to  the  exact  time.  However,  in 
the  cars,  coming  up,  I  met  General  Butler,  and  mentioned  to  him  the 
circumstance  that  his  expedition  was  a  long  time  getting  out,  and 
called  his  attention  to  this  United  Kingdom.  He  said  he  was  suffer- 
ing for  want  of  transports,  and  urged  me  to  go  and  see  Tucker.  I 
went  and  saw  Tucker  at  his  house  Sunday  morning  in  Philadelphia. 
Tucker  said  it  would  do  no  good  for  him  to  act ;  that  he  could  do 
nothing  except  what  he  was  ordered  to  do,  no  matter  how  cheap  or 
applicable  an  offer  might  be. 


94 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  What  did  you  understand  from  that  reply? 
Answer.  That  General  Meigs  was  the  man  to  say  what  should  and 
what  should  not  be  taken. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  that  Tucker  had  no  discretion? 
Answer.  I  so  understood. 

Question.  What  answer  did  he  get  from  General  Meigs? 

Answer.  In  this  case  it  was  to  take  that  boat,  but  he  never  got  any 
answer  as  to  the  Saxonia. 

Question.  Did  Tucker  give  as  a  reason  for  not  chartering  the  Sax- 
onia that  he  had  no  instructions  ? 

Answer.  He  said  he  had  no  authority  to  take  it,  but  that  he  would 
telegraph  to  Washington  for  instructions.  He  did  say  he  thought 
the  price  asked  for  the  Saxonia  was  too  high. 

Question.  How  much  was  the  price? 

Answer.  §2,000  a  day.  She  was  peculiarly  situated,  a  very  ex- 
pensive boat,  very  large,  very  fine,  and  could  be  all  the  time  running. 
I  stated  to  him  that  she  was  coming  out  of  a  trade  in  which  she  was 
making  very  nearly  that,  but  because  the  winter  passages  were  very 
dangerous  they  would  take  her  out  of  that  trade.  The  owners  were 
to  furnish  coal  and  everything,  and  keep  her  in  good  order,  with  a 
full  crew.  I  remarked  to  him  that  it  was  rather  a  high  price,  though 
by  comparison  it  was  a  low  one. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  about  the  tow-boat  Yankee? 

Answer.  She  was  owned  by  Russel  Sturges  and  an  association  of 
persons.  She  was  hired  at  $500  a  day,  double  what  she  was  worth, 
and  afterwards  bought  by  the  government. 

Question.  What  was  the  value  of  this  tug-boat? 

Answer.  They  estimated  her  to  be  worth  about  §25,000.  I  think 
they  sold  her  to  the  government  for  $28,000. 

Question.  How  much  charter  money  did  she  earn  before  she  was 
bought  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  think  one  of  the  owners  told  me  that  she  had  had  about 
$10,000  charter  money  when  she  was  sold  to  the  government. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  tow-boat  Uncle  Ben? 

Answer.  I  think  she  was  chartered  at  $300  a  day  to  go  to  Charles- 
ton, and  the  government  was  to  pay  $12,000  for  her  if  lost  or  de- 
stroyed. She  never  reached  Charleston,  but  put  into  Wilmington, 
North  Carolina,  in  distress,  where  she  was  captured  by  the  rebels. 

Question.  How  much  did  the  government  pay  for  her? 

Answer.  $12,000. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  about  the  steamships  Philadelphia 
and  Empire  City  ? 

Answer.  I  am  familiar  with  both  of  them,  having  been  to  sea  in 
each  of  them.  They  were  built  in  1848  and  1849,  and  were  part  of 
the  assets  of  the  United  States  Mail  Company.  They  were  sold  at 
auction  some  five  years  ago. 

Question.  For  whose  benefit? 

Answer.  For  the  United  States  Mail  Steamship  Company. 

Question.  By  whom  were  they  purchased  ? 

Answer.  Marshall  O.  Roberts. 

Question.  About  how  much  did  they  bring  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


95 


Answer.  I  think  one  Drought  $10,500,  and  the  other  §12,000,  not 
over  $23,000  for  both.  The  Star  of  the  West  was  sold  at  the  same 
time. 

Question.  What  became  of  them  afterwards? 

Answer.  They  were  laid  up  a  long  time,  and  were  considered  unfit 
for  service. 

Question.  Were  they  afterwards  purchased  or  chartered  by  the  gov- 
ernment ;  and  if  so,  by  whom,  and  at  what  price  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  first  charter  was  made  by  Mr.  Weed  when  the 
capital  was  in  danger  at  the  first  breaking  out  of  the  rebellion.  He 
chartered  a  large  number  of  vessels  very  suddenly  without  fixing  any 
price.  I  recollect  Tucker  told  me  that  one  reason  these  vessel-owners 
were  so  demoralized,  was  that  the  vessels  had  been  taken  at  first  without 
any  bargains  at  all,  it  being  understood  that  Moses  H.  Grinnell  was 
to  fix  the  price.  That  was  for  a  short,  rushing,  hurried  voyage.  I 
remarked  to  Tucker,  when  one  of  these  expeditions  went  out,  that  it 
was  a  shame  to  put  such  boats  as  the  Philadelphia  and  Empire  City 
to  transporting  troops ;  that  if  he  would  look  at  the  standing  of  these 
ships  in  the  American  Lloyds,  he  would  see  that  they  were  not  fit  for 
the  transportation  of  soldiers.  He  said  it  was  impossible  to  keep 
track  of  these  transactions  ;  that  before  he  knew  anything  about  it,  one 
quartermaster  would  charter  half  a  dozen  ships,  and  before  he  could 
turn  round,  another  would  charter  half  a  dozen  others.  He  said  there 
was  no  concert  of  action.  I  believe  he  was  truly  desirous  to  do  every- 
thing as  it  should  be  done. 

Question.  You  have  stated  what  Roberts  gave  for  the  Empire  City 
and  Philadelphia.  What  did  the  government  charter  or  buy  them 
for  afterwards  ? 

Answer.  They  were  chartered,  I  understand,  for  $1,500  and  §1,700 
a  day,  but  I  cannot  swear  to  the  fact. 

Question.  How  much  did  the  charter  money  amount  to  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  exactly,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  was 
over  §300,000  for  both. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  Illinois  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  she  is  a  very  fine  ship.  I  think  she  was  in  the 
Sherman  expedition. 

Question.  Who  chartered  her  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Roberts. 

Question.  For  how  much  ? 

Answer.  About  §1,700  a  day. 

Question.  How  much  charter  money  did  she  earn  ? 

Answer.  A  very  large  sum. 

Question.  Did  Roberts  sell  or  charter  any  other  boats  to  the  gov- 
ernment ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  He  sold  the  Winfield  Scott  and  the  Union  to 
the  government. 

Question.  For  how  much  ? 

Answer.  $100,000  each,  and  one  was  totally  lost  and  the  other  con- 
demned a  few  days  after  they  went  to  sea. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  steamer  Coatzacoalcos  ? 
Answer.  She  was  a  British-built  steamboat  that  was  brought  from 


96 


TESTIMONY. 


the  lakes  and  naturalized  by  an  act  of  Congress  for  the  Tehuantepec 
Company.  The  company  failed,  and  Mr.  Roberts  became  the  owner 
of  her.  I  think  I  first  saw  her  at  Annapolis,  landing  the  69th  regi- 
ment. 

Question.  What  was  she  paid  for  her  services? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  what  she  was  paid  at  that  time.  She  re- 
ceived $1,300  a  day  in  the  Sherman  expedition  for  a  long  time.  She 
came  near  losing  a  regiment  in  that  expedition,  and  was  entirely  unfit 
for  the  service. 

Question.  Where  is  she  now  ? 

Answer.  She  is  now  running  between  Nicaragua  and  New  York. 

Question.  Is  the  "  magnificent  new  steamship  America/'  as  ad- 
vertised, the  same  as  the  old  Coatzacoalcos  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  I  saw  her  original  hog-frame  sticking  out 
from  her  upper  deck. 

Question.  Is  she  in  the  government  employ  at  this  time? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  She  has,  however,  had  so  much  work  put  upon 
her  that  she  is  now  a  very  fair  ship  for  the  coasting  trade. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  about  the  Star  of  the  South  ? 

Answer.  She  was  built  in  Philadelphia,  and  is  about  ten  years  old 
now. 

Question.  Where  is  she  now  ? 

Answer.  She  has  just  arrived  in  New  York. 

Question.  Is  she  owned  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  From  whom  was  she  chartered  ? 

Answer.  Samuel  L.  Mitchell. 

Question.  At  what  rate  ? 

Answer.  Tucker  told  me  it  was  $900  a  day  for  that  expedition. 
Question.  What  do  you  know  about  the  Oriental  ? 
Answer.  She  is  a  fine  new  iron  ship.    Her  owners  told  me  she  cost 
$150,000. 

Question.  What  of  the  Matanzas  ? 

Answer.  She  is  a  splendid  boat  of  873  tons,  and  worth  about 
$100,000. 

Question.  Was  she  chartered  to  the  government  ? 
Answer.  For  a  long  time. 
Question.  At  what  rate  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  $900  a  day.  The  list  of  charters  which  Mr. 
Tucker  gave  me  I  have  lost,  but  I  know  we  had  some  conversation 
about  that  boat.  I  came  to  New  York  to  see  her,  and  they  had  put 
up  her  price  to  $150,000.  I  advised  Tucker  not  to  take  her.  She 
cost  about  $105,000. 

Question.  Was  she  worth  $100,000  ? 

Answer,  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  charter  money  has  she  earned? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know,  but  my  impression  is  that  she  has  earned 
about  $200,000. 

Question.  Whatdo  you  know  concerning  the  Mayflower  and  Osceola? 
Answer.  The  Mayflower  is  an  old  Boston  and  Nahant  steamboat. 
I  know  she  was  an  old  and  comparatively  worthless  boat. 


TESTIMONY. 


97 


Question.  What  was  she  worth  ? 

Answer.  There  was  a  difference  of  opinion  about  her  value.  Collier 
put  some  repairs  upon  her,  and  she  may  be  worth,  with  the  repairs, 
$12,000.    She  was  chartered  to  the  government  for  $400  a  day. 

Question.  For  how  long  a  time? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  She.  was  in  service  several  months.  I  do 
not  know  anything  about  the  Osceola  except  from  seeing  her  lying  in 
New  York. 

Question.  What  became  of  her  ? 

Answer.  She  was  chartered  by  Colonel  Tompkins  of  Mr.  Spofford 
for  $400. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  about  the  Boston,  Delaware,  and 
Cosmopolitan  ? 

Answer.  Those  boats  are  now  in  the  government  employ.  One  of 
those  boats,  the  Boston,  had  already  earned  $40,000,  and  was  chartered 
by  Mr.  Tucker,  Assistant  Secretary  of  War,  for  ninety  days,  for 
$216,000,  making  her  earnings  altogether  $256,000,  although  the 
entire  value  of  the  boats  was  far  less  than  that  sum,  and  though  the 
owners  had  offered  them  at  reasonable  rates.  Mr.  Tucker  admitted  to 
me  that  the  transaction  was  infamous,  but  said  General  Meigs's  orders 
were  positive.  Mr.  Tucker  has  been  Assistant  Secretary  of  War  a 
year,  and  these  boats  are  still  in  government  employ. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  of  the  Suwanee? 

Answer.  She  was  formerly  the  fillibuster  Pampero,  worth  not  over 
$10,000.  She  laid  in  Wilmington  about  seven  months.  I  went  down 
and  examined  her,  and  reported  her  quality  and  condition  to  Mr. 
Tucker,  and  to  my  astonishment  I  learned  that  a  friend  of  mine  in 
Philadelphia,  a  tobacco  dealer,  entirely  ignorant  of  the  value  of 
vessels,  had  obtained  the  refusal  of  her  from  the  owners,  and  chartered 
her  to  Mr.  Tucker  for  $60,000  for  four  months'  service.  She  received 
$65,000,  and  made  money  by  officers  and  in  the  ways  usual  to  vessels  in 
the  government  employ,  and,  if  report  says  correctly,  is  serving  the 
country  in  the  Banks  expedition. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  about  the  Salvor  ? 

Answer.  I  only  know  that  she  was  sold  at  auction  in  Philadelphia 
by  order  of  the  Navy  Department,  she  being  one  of  the  prizes.  She 
was  bought  by  Thomas  Clyde  for  $12,000.  She  has  been  a  long  time 
under  charter,  and  is  now  in  the  employ  of  the  government. 

Question.  At  what  rate  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  was  told  that  she  got  $12,000  a  month. 
At  that  rate  she  would  make  a  great  amount  of  money. 

Question.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  transactions  of  the  govern- 
ment touching  the  purchase  and  chartering  of  vessels,  can  you  state 
whether  they  have  been  favorable  to  the  government  or  otherwise  ? 

Answer.  I  think  an  investigation  would  prove  that  there  has  been 
at  least  $25,000,000  paid  more  than  was  necessary. 

Question.  From  what  do  you  make  up  that  judgment  ? 

Answer.  From  the  chartered  and  purchased  vessels  I  am  acquainted 
with,  and  the  enormous  sums  wasted  there  to  my  certain  knowledge. 

Part  iii  7 


98 


TESTIMONY. 


New  York,  January  2,  1863. 

C.  S.  Franklin  sworn  : 

Question.  Please  state  your  official  position. 

Answer.  I  am  deputy  naval  officer  of  the  port  of  New  York. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  in  relation  to  the  seizure  of  the  goods 
of  C.  Paturel  &  Co.  ? 

Answer.  I  am  reminded  by  the  notices  of  seizures  in  the  office  that 
such  a  seizure  was  made  ;  and  I  recollect  it  perfectly,  after  looking 
over  the  papers. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  in  relation  to  the  circumstances  of 
that  seizure  ? 

Answer.  Only  that  it  was  referred  to  me  for  adjustment  by  Mr. 
Dennison,  the  naval  officer  who  had  been  in  communication  with  Mr. 
Averill,  the  counsel  of  the  parties.  I  then  caused  Mr.  Averill  to  sign 
the  usual  document,  being  an  acknowledgment  of  forfeiture,  with  a 
request  that  he  might  pay  the  amount  to  the  collector,  in  order  to 
save  the  expense  of  condemnation.  That  was  a  matter  entirely 
within  his  own  volition.  He  being  unfamiliar  with  the  matter,  I  sub- 
mitted to  him  that  he  could  either  confess  the  forfeiture,  and  pay 
the  amount  into  court,  or  upon  a  written  request  to  the  collector,  he 
could  pay  the  same  to  the  collector,  as  was  most  usual  in  cases  where 
so  small  an  amount  was  involved. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  reasons  why  this  seizure  was  made? 

Answer.  It  was  made  because  of  an  advance  by  the  United  States 
appraiser  of  thirty  per  cent,  over  the  invoice  prices. 

Question.  What  is  your  practice,  under  the  direction  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department,  in  relation  to  such  advances  ? 

Answer.  To  consider  an  advance  of  over  twenty  per  cent,  as  a  just 
cause  of  seizure,  though  an  examination  may,  in  some  cases,  lead  us 
to  the  conclusiou  that  no  fraud  was  intended  or  perpetrated.  Some- 
times a  reappraisement  may  obviate  the  difficulty. 

Question.  Have  you  any  instructions  upon  that  head  from  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  we  are  to  consider  an  advance  by  the  United 
States  appraiser  of  twenty  per  cent,  as  'prima  facie  evidence  of  fraud. 
The  collector  is  positively  instructed  to  make  seizures  in  such  cases. 

Question.  How  much  money  was  received  in  this  case? 

Answer.  The  sum  of  $450  was  received,  that  being  the  appraised 
value  of  the  goods — the  home  valuation.  That  home  value  was  ar- 
rived at  by  the  United  States  appraisers,  under  the  direction  of  the 
collector,  by  his  deputy.  That  home  value  exceeded  the  invoice  value 
thirty  or  forty  per  cent. 

Question.  In  making  the  payment  of  the  full  amount  of  the  ap- 
praisement in  this  case,  to  whom  was  that  payment  made,  and  what 
were  the  circumstances  attending  it? 

Answer.  The  payment  was  made  to  G.  D.  Bayard,  the  clerk  having 
charge  of  the  seizure  bureau,  and  he  transmitted  the  amount  immedi- 
ately to  Mr.  Ogden,  the  auditor.  The  amount  paid  was  the  home 
value  of  the  goods.  That  is  what  the  appraisers  supposed  the  goods 
would  bring  if  exposed  to  public  sale  here  ;  in  other  words,  all  that 
the  United  States  could  possibly  realize  if  the  goods  were  condemned 
before  a  court  and  sold  by  the  marshal. 


TESTIMONY. 


99 


Question.  Was  any  receipt  given  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  we  do  not  give  receipts  for  moneys  paid  for  duties. 
Question.  Do  you  know  particularly  how  the  payment  was  made  in 
this  case  ? 

Answer.  As  he  did  not  know  the  place  where  the  bureau  was  located, 
I  accompanied  him  there,  and  there  he  paid  it  to  the  clerk  in  charge 
of  that  bureau,  G.  D.  Bayard,  and  by  him  it  was  transmitted  to  Mr. 
Ogden,  the  auditor. 

Question.  Did  you  go  out  and  get  any  of  the  money  changed  into 
gold? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  Mr.  Averill,  the  attorney  for  Paturel  &  Co.,  speaks  in 
his  evidence  about  asking  for  a  receipt;  state  what  the  practice  of  the 
office  is  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

Answer.  We  never  give  a  receipt  for  duties  paid  in  any  case.  All 
the  documents  are  put  on  file,  and  they  show  the  entire  transaction. 
All  the  documents  touching  this  transaction  are  part  of  the  custom- 
house records. 

Question.  And  in  giving  your  testimony  now,  do  you  speak  from 
the  documents? 

Answer.  I  speak  from  documents  which  I  now  have  in  my  hands. 

Question.  What  is  the  advantage  or  disadvantage  to  the  government 
arising  from  this  mode  of  settlement  by  the  custom-house  officers  ? 

Answer.  The  advantage  is,  that  in  nearly,  if  not  quite,  all  the 
cases  the  government  receives  more  than  it  would  were  the  matter 
settled  by  the  courts.  Delays  ensue  before  the  goods  can  be  con- 
demned, and  they  frequently  depreciate  in  value.  In  addition,  they 
are  liable  to  loss  in  various  ways  by  transmission  from  hand  to  hand. 

Question.  What  as  to  the  costs  and  expenses  of  settlement,  where  a 
case  is  carried  to  the  court  for  adjudication  ? 

Answer.  Unless  the  goods  realize  full  $250,  the  government  gets 
little  or  nothing.  The  fees  of  the  clerk,  marshal,  and  district  attorney, 
very  generally  consume  the  entire  proceeds. 

Question.  Under  the  mode  of  settlement  by  the  custom-house 
officials,  of  cases  even  under  §250,  does  the  government  get  a  portion 
of  the  amount  received  ? 

Answer.  The  government  gets  one-half. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  Continuously  since  1841. 

Question.  During  that  time  what  has  been  the  practice  of  the  cus- 
tom-house in  regard  to  the  payment  of  those  small  amounts  ?  Have 
they  usually  been  paid  into  court,  or  have  they  been  paid  in  at  the 
custom-house  ? 

Answer.  I  consider  our  practice  now  what  it  has  ever  been  since 
I  have  had  any  knowledge  of  the  matter  of  seizures,  which  is  about 
eight  years.  During  all  that  time  I  think  the  practice  has  been  uni- 
formly one  way,  when  requested  by  the  claimant  of  the  goods,  or  his 
counsel,  and  for  small  amounts. 

Question.  Which  is  the  better  practice,  so  far  as  the  government  is 
concerned,  to  pay  the  money  into  court,  or  to  pay  it  to  the  collector  ? 

Answer.  Decidedly  to  pay  it  to  the  collector. 

Question.  Why? 


100 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  Because  it  saves  costs  of  suit  and  depreciation  of  goods 
Question.  Then  this  is  no  new  practice  recently  inaugurated? 
Answer.  No,  sir;  not  at  all. 


New  York,  January  2,  1863. 

George  Dennison  sworn : 

Question.  Have  you  looked  over  the  testimony  of  H.  F.  Averill, 
given  December  19,  1862. 
Answer.  I  have. 

Question.  Are  there  any  matters  in  that  testimony  which  you  desire 
to  explain  ? 

Answer.  I  wish  to  say  that  my  attention  was  drawn  to  this  case  of 
C.  Paturel  &  Co.  by  a  report  from  the  appraiser's  office  of  a  large 
advance  on  the  invoice  price  of  the  goods.  I  immediately  took 
measures  to  have  previous  invoices  examined.  Upon  that  examina- 
tion of  the  invoices  I  became  satisfied  that  the  practice  of  this  party 
had  been  irregular  and  improper,  and  I  therefore  caused  a  warrant  to 
be  procured  and  lodged  with  the  surveyor.  The  surveyor,  with  his 
aids,  visited  the  premises  of  Paturel  &  Co.  From  the  evidence  pro- 
cured there,  I  became  convinced  that  this  firm  had  been  making  out 
false  invoices  and  lodging  them  with  the  officers  of  the  custom-house. 
On  examination  I  found  there  was  but  a  small  amount  of  property  on 
the  premises.  The  firm  had  been  dissolved,  and  the  parties  who  had 
been  connected  with  Paturel  had  taken  away  most  of  the  assets  of  the 
concern.  I  found  that  Paturel  was  not  in  very  good  circumstances. 
He  confessed  to  me  that  his  invoices  were  false,  and  that  he  had  been 
practicing  that  thing  for  some  time,  though  he  had  received  but  a 
small  portion  of  the  proceeds,  and  that  the  party  who  realized  the 
most  resided  in  Paris.  He  seemed  very  penitent  and  desirous  that  the 
matter  should  be  adjusted.  The  parties  detailed  from  the  appraiser's 
office  made  a  report  which  is  on  file.  I  reported  to  the  collector 
through  Mr.  Stanton,  his  deputy,  or  the  party  in  charge,  the  facts, 
and  gave  them  my  judgment  as  to  what  course  should  be  pursued. 
There  seemed  to  be  no  question  about  the  facts,  and  the  party  con- 
sented to  pay  the  appraised  value  of  the  goods.  That  was  paid  in  the 
usual  manner,  and^the  vouchers  for  that,  and  of  the  entire  transaction, 
are  on  the  files  of  the  custom-house. 

I  wish  to  say  that  Mr.  Averill  states  what  is  not  true  in  reference 
to  Mr.  Isaacs.  I  did  not  refer  him  to  Mr.  Isaacs.  I  referred  him  to 
Mr.  Franklin,  who  is  my  special  deputy,  and  has  charge  of  all  mat- 
ters in  my  office,  especially  of  seizures.  He  has  for  a  long  time  been 
in  the  service  of  the  government,  and  is  an  exceedingly  able  officer 
and  upright  man.  He  has  been  here  through  all  administrations,  and 
in  my  practice  in  relation  to  these  matters  I  defer  to  Mr.  Franklin, 
Mr.  Clinch,  Mr.  Samuel  G.  Ogden,  and  Mr.  H.  B.  Stanton,  who  are 
all  able  men,  thorough  revenue  lawyers,  and  in  every  way,  in  my 
judgment,  upright  and  competent  to  discharge  the  duties  pertaining 
to  those  matters. 


TESTIMONY. 


101 


Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  cases  which  have  "been  settled  with 
parties  charged  with  attempting  to  evade  the  revenue  laws,  outside  of 
the  usual  way  of  making  settlements  of  seizures;  in  other  words, 
whether,  when  parties  have  "been  detected  in  attempting  to  defraud  the 
revenue,  there  has  been  paid  to  any  person  or  persons  in  or  about  the 
custom-house,  or  in  any  way  connected  with  the  collection  of  the  rev- 
enue, what  is  called  hushmoney  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  In  all  matters  connected  with  the  seizure  of 
goods,  within  my  experience  or  knowledge,  there  are  on  file  in  the 
custom-house  full  records  of  all  the  transactions,  and  there  was  never, 
to  my  knowledge,  a  penny  received  by  any  one  of  the  revenue  officers 
without  the  consent  of  the  others.  In  other  words,  I  have  never  made 
a  settlement  without  the  full  concurrence  of  the  collector  and  the 
surveyor,  either  personally  or  by  deputy. 

Question.  You  state  that  all  such  settlements  have  been  made  in 
accordance  with  law,  and  upon  papers  and  documents  which  form  a 
part  of  the  records  of  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  Most  assuredly.  There  never  has  been  a  case  settled  since 
I  have  had  any  knowledge  of  the  custom-house  in  New  York  which 
has  not  been  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  laws  and  treasury  regu- 
lations. 

Question.  And  the  terms  of  the  settlement  are  all  shown  by  the 
papers  on  file  in  the  office  ? 

Answer.  Always;  and  in  the  first  place,  when  the  amount  to  be 
received  is  talked  about,  the  preliminary  step  is  the  report  of  the  ap- 
praisers, a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  revenue  with  the  other  heads  of 
the  department. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  in  relation  to  this  man  Sabastine, 
mentioned  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Averill  ? 

Answer.  I  received  notice  from  the  boarding  officers,  Messrs.  Brown, 
Isaacs,  and  Archer,  that  they  had  made  a  seizure  from  tlae  person  of 
this  man  Sabastine.  Sabastine  came  to  the  naval  office,  and  in  the 
course  of  my  investigation  confessed  that  he  attempted  to  smuggle 
the  goods  on  shore,  and  I  deemed  it  proper  that  he  should  pay  the 
appraised  value  of  the  goods.  He  did  so,  and  the  money  was  paid 
into  the  hands  of  the  auditor,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Sabastine. 


New  York,  January  2,  1863. 

Charles  P.  Clinch  sworn  : 

Question.  Please  state  your  official  position. 

Answer.  I  am  deputy  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  in  charge 
of  the  eighth  division. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  w  ith  the  custom-house? 
Answer.  Since  1838. 

Question.  Under  what  collector  did  you  first  come  in? 
Answer.  Jesse  Hoyt. 

Question.  And  you  have  been  in  through  all  the  administrations 
ever  since  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  . 


102 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Have  you  any  particular  knowledge  in  relation  to  seizures? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  never  had  any  knowledge  at  all  in  re- 
lation to  the  seizures  of  the  custom-house.  I  sometimes  made  seizures 
when  I  was  acting  collector. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  in  relation  to  transactions 
growing  out  of  seizures  made? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  such  information  would  not  naturally  come  to 
my  knowledge. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  cases  which  have  been  settled  with 
parties  charged  with  attempting  to  evade  the  revenue  laws  outside  of 
the  usual  way  of  making  settlements  of  seizures;  in  other  words, 
whether,  when  parties  have  been  detected  in  attempting  to  defraud 
the  revenue,  there  has  been  paid  to  any  person  or  persons  in  or  about 
the  custom-house,  or  in  any  way  connected  with  the  collection  of  the 
revenue,  what  is  called  hushmoney  f 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Were  you  situated  so  as  to  know  if  any  such  transactions 
were  going  on  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Your  duties  do  not  appertain  particularly  to  that  branch 
of  the  business  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  Since  1855  my  duties  have  related  to  conducting 
the  correspondence  with  the  department. 

Question.  In  discharging  the  duties  you  have  been  performing  in 
the  custom-house,  if  it  had  been  the  practice  of  parties  connected  with 
the  collection  of  the  customs  to  receive  amounts  as  hushmoney  from 
persons  suspected  with  defrauding  the  revenue,  would  you  have  been 
likely  to  have  known  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  Such  knowledge  would  not  be  likely  to  come  to 
me.  I  have  never,  during  my  whole  service  in  the  custom-house  since 
1838,  heard  of  a  single  case  of  that  kind. 


New  York,  January  3,  1863. 

Amos  Clark  sworn : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  I  am  now  stopping  in  this  city,  but  my  residence  is  Eliza- 
beth City,  New  Jersey. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  contracts  with  the  government  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  am  now  working  for  the  government  upon 
contracts. 

Question.  What  contracts  have  you  had? 

Answer.  Contracts  for  overcoats,  pantaloons,  and  frock  coats. 

Question.  At  what  time  were  those  contracts  made,  and  what  was 
the  extent  of  them  ? 

Answer.  The  first  thing  I  made  for  Colonel  Vinton  was  2,000  over- 
coats of  sky-blue  kersey. 

Question.  When  was  that  ? 

Answer.  In  July,  1861. 


TESTIMONY, 


103 


Question.  At  what  price  ? 
Answer.  At  $7  each. 

Question.  Was  the  material  what  is  called  army  cloth? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Regulation  goods  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  was  the  next  contract?  - 

Answer.  The  next  was  to  make  some  Zouave  suits,  for  which  I  got 
$11  for  the  entire  suit.  I  made  up  the  leggings,  jacket,  pantaloons, 
and  caps. 

Question.  How  many  ? 

Answer.  One  thousand. 

Question.  What  was  the  next  contract? 

Answer.  I  did  not  make  anything  more  for  some  time  ;  not  until 
along  in  the  latter  part  of  September  or  the  first  of  October.  On  the 
second  of  October  I  took  a  contract  for  six  thousand  overcoats. 

Question.  Of  whom  did  you  take  it? 

Answer.  Colonel  David  H.  Vinton. 

Question.  Of  what  were  they  to  be  made,  and  at  what  price  ? 
Answer.  At  $6  ;  to  be  made  of  felt  cloth — sometimes  called  Peter- 
sham felt  cloth. 

Question.  Is  the  coat  I  now  hand  to  you  one  of  those  made  by  you  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  you  made  six  thousand  of  them  under  that  contract  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Question.  Were  you  paid? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Who  inspected  the  goods  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  What  has  been  done  with  those  goods? 
Answer.  They  have  been  given  to  the  sick  and  wounded  soldiers. 
Question.  Were  they  made  for  sick  and  wounded  soldiers  ? 
Answer.  No^  sir. 

Question.  What  were  they  made  for? 

Answer.  They  were  made  for  soldiers'  overcoats. 

Question.  If  made  for  soldiers,  why  have  they  not  been  used  ? 

Answer.  Because,  at  the  time  the  contract  was  finished  and  the 
clothes  brought  in,  the  colonel  was  able  to  get  sky-blue  kersey.  His 
object  in  ordering  these  was  to  enable  him  to  reduce  the  price  of  sky- 
blue  kersey.  They  were  asking  such  enormous  prices  for  sky-blue  at 
that  time  that  he  asked  me  what  I  could  get  to  make  army  overcoats 
of  in  its  place  ;  and  I  got  this  material.  We  had  a  large  number  of 
soldiers  in  the  field  at  that  time,  and  much  was  said  in  the  papers 
about  the  soldiers  being  without  overcoats. 

Question.  You  say,  before  these  were  delivered,  they  got  other  ma- 
terial.   How  soon  were  they  to  be  delivered  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say.  I  have  the  contract  in  my  store,  and  that 
will  show. 

Question.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  contract  was  made 
by  you  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  down  the  price  of  sky-blue  kersey  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


104 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  And  not  for  use? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir,  for  use  too. 
Question.  Why  were  they  not  used? 

Answer.  They  were  all,  except  a  very  few,  and  the  few  that  were 
left  were  given  to  the  sick  and  wounded  soldiers.  The  colonel  could 
not  give  them  anything  better  than  that. 

Question.  Who  inspected  them? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Where  were  they  inspected? 

Answer.  At  the  quartermaster's  office  here. 

Question.  Were  any  of  the  coats  you  furnished  rejected  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  many? 

Answer.  Five  or  six  hundred. 

Question.  What  were  they  rejected  for? 

Answer.  Because  they  were  thin.    In  making  up  a  large  amount  of 
clothing  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  inspect  them  all  myself. 
Question.  What  contracts  have  you  since  had  ? 
Answer.  I  am  now  making  up  sky-blue  regulation  goods  ? 
Question.  To  what  amount  ? 

Answer.  From  five  to  eight  hundred  thousand  dollars  worth. 
Question.  Is  the  government  still  indebted  to  you  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  I  understand  you  have  furnished  and  been  paid  for  6,000 
coats  like  the  one  I  showed  you. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  have  the  same  kind  of  coats  in  my  store  this 
year,  which  I  am  selling  to  our  regular  trade  and  getting  more  money 
for  them  than  I  got  for  those  I  made  for  Colonel  Vinton. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  many  coats  of  this  kind  A.  T.  Stewart 
furnished  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  30,000. 

Question.  For  how  much  ? 

Answer.  For  one  dollar  more  each  than  I  got.  I  know  he  turned 
in  a  large  quantity  of  these  goods. 

Question.  Is  he  still  manufacturing  for  the  government  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  He  may  be  selling  goods,  but  he  is  not  manu- 
facturing. Other  large  houses  made  up  the  same  goods.  Some  also 
made  up  black  satinetts  and  goods  of  that  kind  because  it  was  impos- 
sible to  get  anything  better  at  that  time. 


New  York,  January  3,  1863. 

John  K.  Bulmer,  sworn: 

Question.  State  your  official  connexion  with  the  government. 

Answer.  I  am  master-joiner  at  the  navy  yard. 

Question.  Can  you  state  how  supplies  are  furnished  the  navy  yard, 
whether  by  contract  or  by  purchase  through  the  navy  agent? 

Answer.  Some  by  contract,  and  some  by  open  purchase  through  the 
navy  agent. 


TESTIMONY. 


105 


Question.  Where  the  supplies  are  furnished  under  contract,  are  the 
contracts  made  hy  the  different  bureaus  at  Washington  ? 
Answer.  I  presume  they  are. 

Question.  Are  you  advised  in  regard  to  the  price  paid  by  the  navy 
agent  ? 

Answer.  I  have  been  in  some  instances,  but  not  in  all. 

Question.  Can  you  state  the  comparative  prices  paid  by  the  navy 
agent  and  the  contract  prices  for  the  same  articles  ? 

Answer.  In  the  contracts,  some  articles  are  put  down  at  a  low 
figure  ;  sometimes  articles  worth  a  dollar  are  put  down  at  ten  cents, 
while,  when  purchased  in  open  market,  the  full  value  is  charged  for 
them,  if  not  more. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  frauds  or  speculations  in  the 
purchase  of  articles  by  the  navy  agent  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  knowledge  of  any  exorbitant  prices  being  paid 
at  any  time  ? 

Answer.  In  answer,  I  will  say  that,  when  I  first  went  to  the  yard  I 
was  advised  both  as  to  the  prices  and  quality  of  the  articles.  There 
was  an  inspecting  officer  at  the  yard,  who  then  rated  as  second  lieu- 
tenant, now  as  commander.  These  inspecting  officers  are  changed 
every  little  while.  One  of  them  in  particular,  Mr.  Haxtun,  now  com- 
mander, gave  me  to  understand  that  I  had  nothing  to  with  the  prices 
of  the  articles,  but  was  only  to  judge  of  the  quality.  Since  then  I 
have  not  interfered. 

Question.  Prior  to  that  time  what  was  your  information  or  knowl- 
edge of  the  prices  paid,  compared  with  the  contract  prices  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  contract  prices.  I  was  merely 
asked  to  say  whether  the  prices  were  fair  market  prices ;  and  in  many 
instances  I  rejected  articles  both  on  account  of  price  and  quality. 

Question.  If  you  know  anything  in  regard  to  the  purchases  by  the 
navy  agent  that  would  seem  to  vary  considerably  from  the  contract 
rates  paid  by  the  government,  you  will  please  state  what  it  is. 

Answer.  I  only  know  that  some  of  the  articles  paid  for  under  con- 
tract are  put  down  at  a  low  figure,  while  in  open  purchases  they  pay 
the  full  market  prices. 

Question.  Explain  how  that  is  done? 

Answer.  When  a  contractor  makes  out  his  estimates  and  bids,  he 
might,  for  instance,  put  down  two  inch  screws,  knowing  that  we  use 
very  few  of  them,  at  five  cents  a  gross,  while  they  may  be  worth  two 
dollars  a  gross;  and  at  the  same  time  he  would  put  down  inch  screws, 
knowing  we  use  a  great  many  of  them,  at  two  dollars  a  gross,  while 
they  are  not  worth,  perhaps,  half  that  much.  In  open  purchases  the 
bills  sometimes  come  in  with  exorbitant  prices,  and  using  my  judg- 
ment as  to  prices,  if  they  are  fair,  the  articles  are  taken;  if  not,  they 
are  rejected. 


106 


TESTIMONY. 


William  Allen  Butler  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  "business  ? 

Answer.  I  am  a  counsellor  at  law,  residing  in  the  city  of  New 
York.  I  am  a  member  of  the  law  firm  of  Barney,  Butler  &  Parsons. 
Mr.  Barney,  since  his  appointment  as  collector,  has  not  given  per- 
sonal attention  to  law  business,  his  official  duties  fully  occupying  his 
time. 

Question.  Have  you  read  the  testimony  taken  before  this  committee 
touching  the  transfer  of  the  labor  contract? 

Answer.  I  desire  to  say  that  I  have  read  a  portion  of  the  testimony 
taken  before  this  committee,  containing  allegations  that  a  check  of 
"  Barney,  Parsons  &  Co.,"  meaning,  I  suppose,  my  firm,  was  given 
in  connexion  with  a  transfer  of  interests  under  the  so-called  "labor 
contract."  Such  statement  is  untrue.  No  such  check  was  ever  given, 
nor  was  my  firm  ever  interested  under  that  or  any  other  contract  con- 
nected with  the  custom-house. 

Question.  Have  you  any  statement  to  make  touching  your  con- 
nexion with  that  transfer  of  interest  under  the  so-called  labor 
contract  ? 

Answer.  I  was  personally  and  professionally  cognizant  of,  and  con- 
nected with  the  matters  relating  to  the  transfer  of  interests  under  that 
contract.  In  the  latter  part  of  April,  or  beginning  of  May,  1861,  I 
was  retained  to  examine  into  the  situation  of  that  contract,  to  see 
how  it  stood,  and  whether  it  was  practicable  and  desirable  to  secure 
the  control  of  it.  It  was  understood  that  it  afforded  employment  to 
a  large  number  of  laborers,  and  that  it  was  in  the  hands  of  parties 
politically  unfriendly  to  the  administration.  I  examined  into  it.  I 
looked  to  see  whether  it  was  so  situated  that  I  could  properly  act  in 
the  matter.  It  was,  and  is,  my  rule  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  mat- 
ters depending  upon  influence  with  the  collector  or  on  his  official  pat- 
ronage, or  in  which  my  relations  to  him  would  make  it  in  the  least 
degree  improper  for  me  to  act.  I  found  that  the  contract  in  question 
was  a  matter  over  which  Mr.  Barney  had  no  control.  It  had  been  made 
under  the  direction  of  the  Treasury  Department  in  1859,  and  was  a 
valid  and  subsisting  obligation,  binding  on  the  government  and  on  the 
contractors,  and  having  an  unexpired  period  of  something  more  than  a 
year  to  run.  It  had  been  the  subject  of  a  congressional  investigation 
and  of  a  favorable  report.  I  understood  it  to  be  an  economical  arrange- 
ment for  the  government,  the  advantage  and  saving  being  in  the  sub- 
stitution of  labor  employed  and  superintended  by  private  enterprise 
and  supervision  instead  of  government  officials.  I  had,  therefore,  no 
hesitation  in  acting  in  the  matter,  and  I  did  so  act.  A  negotiation 
was  opened  by  me,  as  counsel  for  the  parties  in  interest,  which  re- 
sulted in  an  arrangement  by  which  Messrs.  Stevens  and  Wyman  were 
appointed  attorneys  to  act  for  the  contractors  to  the  extent  specified 
in  the  power  of  attorney  which  is  in  evidence  before  the  committee. 
So  far  as  the  government  was  concerned,  there  was  no  other  change. 
I  advised  the  parties  that  the  contractors  could  not  divest  them- 
selves of  liability  to  the  government  under  the  contract.  The  risks 
and  contingencies  under  it  were  serious ;  in  addition  to  the  perform- 


TESTIMONY. 


107 


ance  of  the  labor,  it  called  for  repairs  to  stores,  and  imposed  liabili- 
ties for  breakage  and  damage.  The  arrangement  was  that  the  con- 
tractors should  remain  bound  to  the  government  as  before,  one  of 
them,  Mr.  Bixby,  superintending  the  labor.  They  gave  power  to 
Stevens  and  Wyman  to  collect  the  weekly  payments.  They  also,  as 
between  themselves  and  the  same  parties,  assigned  to  them  their  in- 
terest under  the  contract,  whatever  was  assignable.  The  nominal 
consideration  for  this  transfer  was  §20,000.  I  understood  that  to  a 
considerable  extent  the  interest  of  the  original  contractors  was  re- 
tained. But  whatever  information  I  had  on  this  subject  was  derived 
in  the  course  of  my  professional  employment,  and  I  acquired  no  posi- 
tive knowledge  about  it.  Funds  were  placed  in  my  hands  by  par- 
ties in  interest,  and  I  gave  my  own  check  to  Mr.  Craig  on  the  com- 
pletion of  the  transaction.  Stevens  and  Wyman  continued  to  act 
under  the  power  of  attorney  during  the  unexpired  term  of  the  con- 
tract. It  ran  out,  and  was,  as  I  have  always  understood,  fully  per- 
formed.   It  it  was  not,  the  original  contractors  are  liable. 

Mr.  Barney  did  no  act  or  thing  about  the  whole  matter.  It  was 
not  dependent  upon  his  will  or  action  or  patronage,  or  upon  anything 
that  he  could  do  or  not  do.  I  never  had  any  communication  with  him 
on  the  subject  of  this  transfer.  He  never  derived  any  benefit  or  ad- 
vantage from  it.  If  there  has  been  any  statement,  insinuation,  or 
intimation  that  he  did,  or  that  the  arrangement  which  was  made  was 
the  result  of  or  connected  with  any  action  on  his  part,  I  am  able  to 
say  that  it  is  wholly  without  foundation.  I  would  say,  further,  that 
I  understand  that  it  was  stated  to  the  committee  that  Mr.  Wyman 
was  in  the  employ  of  the  house  of  C.  H.  Marshall  &  Co.,  and  the  in- 
ference may  have  been  intended  that  Charles  H.  Marshall  was  inter- 
ested in  the  transfer  above  referred  to.  While  I  can  see  no  possible 
objection  to  his  having  been  so  interested,  I  beg  to  state  that  he  was 
not  my  client  in  the  matter,  nor  had  he  any  interest  whatever  under 
the  contract.  Mr.  Wyman  has,  tor  many  years,  been  connected  with 
the  firm  of  C.  H.  Marshall  &  Co.,  and  is  a  well-known  and  highly 
respected  citizen  of  Brooklyn.  My  knowledge  of  him  led  to  his 
being  selected,  with  the  consent  of  all  parties,  to  act  as  attorney  in 
conjunction  with  Mr.  Stevens,  and  to  take  the  transfer  jointly  with 
him. 

Mr.  Stevens  never  paid  over  any  money  to  me,  arising  under  the 
contract,  that  I  recollect.  Mr.  Bixby  did,  from  time  to  time,  account 
to  me,  as  representing  a  portion  of  the  parties  interested.  The 
moneys  were  so  paid  to  me  upon  a  professional  trust,  which  I  have 
performed.  I  should  say,  in  qualification  of  the  above  remark  about 
Mr.  Stevens,  that  he  did  pay  me  his  proportion  of  my  professional 
charges  in  the  business. 

WM.  ALLEN  BUTLER. 


New  York,  January  3,  1863. 

B.  W.  Jones  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
Answer.  In  New  York. 


108 


TESTIMONY. 


Question,  What  is  your  business? 
Answer.  I  am  an  importer  of  salted  skins  and  leather. 
Question.  Formerly  of  the  firm  of  A.  L.  Dennis,  Jones  &  Co.  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  was  that  firm  dissolved? 
Answer.  On  the  first  of  February,  1862. 

Question.  Had  you,  while  a  member  of  that  firm,  any  goods  seized 
by  the  custom-house  officials  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Question.  To  what  amount? 

Answer.  Without  reference  to  the  books,  I  should  say  somewhere 
between  seventy-five  and  a  hundred  thousand  dollars. 
Question.  By  whom  were  they  seized? 
Answer.  By  the  custom-house  authorities. 
Question.  For  what? 
Answer.  For  undervaluation,  I  think. 

Question.  What  became  of  the  proceedings  which  were  instituted 
in  that  case? 

Answer.  The  matter  was  settled. 

Question.  With  whom  was  it  settled,  and  upon  what  terms? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  with  whom,  because  I  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  settlement.  The  senior  members  of  the  firm  had  the  matter 
in  charge. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  it  was  settled? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Question.  State  how? 

Answer.  There  was  an  amount  paid  to  settle  the  transaction. 

Question.  How  much  was  paid  ? 

Answer.  The  sum  was  paid  to  our  lawyers  ? 

Question.  Who  were  they  ? 

Answer.  Humphreys  and  Odell,  of  Brooklyn. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  amount? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  $25,000. 

Question.  What  became  of  it  afterwards? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell. 

Question.  Did  the  matter  go  into  court? 

Answer.  It  never  went  to  trial.    I  cannot  even  swear  that  $25,000 
was  the  exact  amount  paid,  but  I  think  it  was. 
Question.  When  was  this? 
Answer.  In  September,  1861. 

Question.  What,  and  from  whom,  was  the  first  intimation  your 
firm  had  of  a  complaint  being  made? 

Answer.  The  first  intimation  we  had  was  from  the  custom-house 
officers,  Dennison,  and  Franklin,  a  deputy  naval  officer,  with  some 
underlings  of  the  custom-house  coming  into  our  office  and  seizing  the 
goods. 

Question.  What  did  they  say  ? 

Answer.  They  asked  several  questions — asked  for  the  books  and 
seized  the  goods. 

Question.  Did  they  seize  your  books  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  took  them  away  with  them. 


TESTIMONY. 


109 


Question.  Did  they  state  wherein  you  were  complained  of? 
Answer.  I  think  they  stated  it  was  for  undervaluation. 
Question.  What  invoice  did  they  claim  was  undervalued? 
Answer.    I  do  not  think  any  claim  was  made  as  to  any  particular 
invoice. 

Question.  What  did  they  do  after  they  seized  the  goods  ? 
Answer.  They  put  officers  in  charge  of  them. 
Question.  What  then  did  you  do  ? 

Answer.  I  had  nothing  further  to  do  with  the  matter  after  that.' 
I  had  nothing  to  do  with  investigating  the  matter.  The  senior  mem- 
bers of  the  firm  took  the  matter  in  charge  after  that.  I  was  in  the 
store  at  the  time  the  goods  were  seized. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  the  officers  who  were  put  in  charge  of 
the  goods  in  the  store. 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  their  names. 

Question.  How  long  had  they  charge  of  the  goods? 

Answer.  About  four  weeks. 

Question.  Were  the  goods  appraised  ? 

Answer.  They  had  been  appraised  by  the  officers  when  the  goods 
were  imported,  and  the  goods  were  passed  as  correct. 

Question.  Did  they  appraise  them  when  the  officers  took  charge  of 
the  store  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not. 

Question.  Did  the  goods  you  had  in  the  store  then  all  come  through 
by  one  invoice,  or  had  the  stock  been  accumulating  ? 
Answer.  It  had  been  accumulating. 
Question.  And  they  seized  the  whole  stock? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  did  they  keep  the  books? 
Answer.  Some  of  them  a  day  or  two.    I  think  they  returned  some 
of  the  books  the  next  day,  or  the  day  after. 

Question.  What  did  they  first  ask  to  settle  this  matter  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  What  was  the  value  of  the  goods  they  took  in  charge  ? 
Answer.  I  have  stated  from  seventy-five  to  a  hundred  thousand 
dollars. 

Question.  Was  any  suggestion  made  by  any  of  those  parties  as  to 
what  attorney  you  should  employ  ? 
Answer.  There  was. 
Question.  Who  made  the  suggestion  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  the  man's  name    It  was  one  of  two  men — 
a  man  by  the  name  of  Isaacs  and  another  man. 
Question.  How  came  he  to  make  the  suggestion  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know.    He  made  it  to  me  on  the  side-walk. 
Question.  What  led  him  to  make  it? 

Answer.  He  said  if  I  wanted  this  thing  settled  I  had  better  go  to 
so  and  so,  giving  me  two  or  three  names  ? 
Question.  What  names  were  they  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Were  they  the  names  of  any  of  the  parties  you  employed 
afterwards  ? 


110 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  Dunning  one  name  ? 
Answer.  I  think  it  was. 
Question.  Was  Craig  one. 

Answer.  I  am  not  sure.  I  would  not  swear  even  to  Dunning's 
name. 

Question.  You  were  not  present  when  the  money  was  paid? 

Answer.  I  know  nothing  about  that.  1  know  the  money  was  paid, 
but  to  whom  it  was  paid  I  do  not  know.  It  passed  into  the  hands  of 
the  lawyers. 


New  York,  January  3,  1863. 

George  Dennison  sworn : 

Question.  You  have  heard  the  testimony  of  B.  W.  Jones  read. 
Please  state  your  knowledge  of  the  facts  touching  the  seizure  of  which 
he  testifies. 

Answer.  That  was  the  first  case  I  worked  up  after  I  came  into  the 
naval  office.  I  received  information  from  a  party  in  this  city  of  some 
facts  in  the  case.  I  made  an  examination  of  all  the  invoices  of  this 
firm  in  the  custom-house.  The  goods  imported  were  mostly  salted 
sheepskins.  There  were  colored  skins,  called  colored  skivers.  The 
duty  on  salted  skins  was,  I  think,  but  four  per  cent.  ;  my  recollection 
may  be  wrong.  It  was  but  a  small  percentage  ;  and  the  duty  on  the 
manufactured  goods  was  but  ten  or  fifteen  per  cent.,  according  to  my 
recollection.  I  state  these  facts,  as  it  was  a  very  difficult  case  to  es- 
tablish the  facts  and  convict  the  parties  because  of  the  low  rate  of 
duties.  The  matter  was  under  consideration  by  the  officers  for  perhaps 
two  months.  They  then  deemed  it  proper  to  receive  from  A.  L.  Den- 
nis, Jones  &  Co.  the  sum  of  $25,000  as  a  settlement  of  the  claim  of 
the  government  for  the  fraud  and  under-paid  duties.  That  money 
was  paid  into  the  United  States  district  court.  After  the  payment  of 
the  costs,  the  money  was  transmitted  by  the  court  to  Mr.  Ogden,  the 
auditor ;  he  divided  it,  and  the  revenue  officers  received  nearly  $12,000 ; 
they  divided  their  share  of  the  proceeds  with  the  informer.  We  re- 
ceived in  that  case  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  $3,000  each. 
This  being  my  first  case,  and  a  very  important  one,  and  Mr.  Hart,  the 
former  surveyor,  having  a  knowledge  of  revenue  matters,  especially 
of  seizure  cases,  at  my  suggestion  he  was  retained  by  us  as  revenue 
lawyer  and  paid  $1,000  tor  his  services.  After  that  payment  we 
divided  the  remainder  of  one-half  of  the  money  among  us,  each  re- 
ceiving twenty-five  per  cent.  ;  that  is,  the  collector,  naval  officer,  sur- 
veyor, and  informer. 

Question.  The  government  in  the  first  instance  taking  one-half? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  And  then  after  paying  out  of  our  half  the  coun- 
sel fee  of.  $1,000  we  divided  with  the  informer,  he  receiving  the  same 
as  the  revenue  officers. 

Question.  Are  the  facts  you  have  stated  shown  by  the  records  of  the 
office? 


TESTIMONY 


111 


Answer.  Yes,  sir.  The  records  of  the  court  show  that  the  money 
was  paid  there,  and  the  records  of  the  auditor's  office  show  the  amount 
of  money  received  from  the  court  in  this  case,  the  amount  the  gov- 
ernment received,  as  also  the  amount  each  officer  received.  In  refer- 
ence to  a  ]arge  number  of  ca'ses  I  receive  information  from  parties 
outside.  They  may  hold  confidential  relation  with  the  parties  of 
whom  they  injbrm,  and  holding  those  positions  they  do  not  wish  to 
become  informers ;  and  yet  having  information  which  they  deemed 
would  be  valuable  to  the  government  they  come  to  me,  and  with  the 
consent  of  the  collector  and  surveyor,  and  with  the  approbation  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  I  make  an  arrangement  to  pay  these  parties 
such  sums  as  may  be  agreed  upon,  and  which  is  usually  an  equal 
share. 

Question.  In  this  case  were  the  usual  proceedings  instituted  and 
carried  out  ? 

Answer.  Thoroughly,  in  all  respects.  Everything  was  done  strictly  ' 
in  accordance  with  law  and  the  treasury  regulations,  and  a  record  of 
the  entire  transaction  is  made  up,  except  as  to  the  part  paid  to  the 
informer  ;  that  is  a  matter  known  only  to  the  officers.  The  record 
shows  that  we  received  all  the  money  as  we  do  in  other  cases,  and 
people  who  look  at  the  record  would  say  you  have  received  so  much 
money;  when  if  they  would  receive  explanation  from  the  revenue 
officers  they  would  see  the  sum  diminished  very  much  by  the  amount 
paid  outside  parties  for  information. 

Question.  But  you  received  in  this  case  only  what  the  law  and  the 
regulations  of  the  Treasury  Department  gave  you  ? 

Answer.  That  is  all. 

Question.  The  records  of  your  office  show  that  the  government's 
proportion  of  this  seizure  was  paid  over  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  much  was  first  asked  of  this  firm  to  settle  this 
matter  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  you  now. 
Question.  What  is  your  recollection  ? 

Answer.  I  insisted  that  there  should  be  very  much  more  paid. 
Question.  How  much  more  ? 

Answer.  I  speak  from  recollection.  My  impression  is,  I  might  have 
stated  from  fifty  to  seventy-five  thousand  dollars,  and  perhaps  more. 

Question.  Wherein  consisted  their  violation  of  law  ? 

Answer.  These  goods  had  been  undervalued. 

Question.  Was  it  a  gross  case  of  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  The  amount  was  not  large,  and  it  was  not  suffi- 
cient to  excite  suspicion  upon  a  casual  examination  of  the  invoices; 
and  wheu  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  appraisers  they  expressed 
some  considerable  surprise  at  the  ingenuity  displayed,  from  the  fact 
that  it  did  not  show  a  very  large  percentage  of  gain,  and  that  the 
goods  were  but  a  shilling  or  two  a  dozen  in  the  invoice  less  than  they 
should  have  been.  The  names  were  changed.  I  think  the  goods  are 
classified  as  '  t  double  extras,"  "  extras,"  Nos.  "one,"  "  two,"  and 
"  three,"  and  they  put  <c  double  extras"  as  No.  "  one,"  and  so  on. 
They  simply  made  a  false  classification,  and  even  that  did  not  show  * 


112 


TESTIMONY. 


very  large  percentage  of  increase.  As  I  said  before,  an  examination 
of  the  invoice  by  a  party  familiar  with  such  matters  would  hardly 
make  the  discovery. 

Question.  In  how  many  invoices  was  this  change  detected? 

Answrer.  In  several. 

Question.  Was  the  settlement  which  was  made  with  these  parties 
deemed  an  oppressive  one? 

Answer.  Taking  into  consideration  the  wealth  of  the  parties,  and 
the  amount,  I  did  not  deem  it  oppressive. 

Question.  The  parties  were  not  obliged  to  settle  it? 

Answer.  They  might  have  litigated  it  in  the  district  court.  The 
settlement  was  a  matter  of  their  own  seeking.  For  a  long  time  they 
insisted  they  should  defend  the  matter,  and  have  it  tried  in  the  dis- 
trict court,  but  finally,  as  my  impression  is,  the  matter  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  on  a  review  of  the  whole 
matter  it  was  deemed  best  to  settle  it  as  I  have  stated. 

Question.  As  the  change  in  the  amount  of  the  invoice  was  so  slight, 
was  the  fraud  detected  by  means  of  the  person  you  have  referred  to. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  he  an  employe  of  the  custom-house? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  These  invoices  had  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  cus- 
tom-house appraisers  and  the  fraud  had  escaped  their  detection  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  The  invoices  were  filed  in  the  custom-house, 
and  are  there  now. 

Question.  If  any  of  the  employes  in  the  custom-house  detect  frauds, 
are  they  allowed  any  share  of  the  penalty,  forfeiture,  or  compromise 
money  ? 

Answer.  I  should  say  that  the  practice  has  not  been  for  the  em- 
ployes of  the  custom-house  to  appear  as  informers. 

Question.  They  are  not  allowed  to  appear? 

Answer.  They  are  allowed  to,  but  it  is  not  the  practice. 

Question.  If  they  are  allowed  to  appear  as  informers,  is  that  an 
exception  to  the  practice  of  the  office  ? 

Answer.  The  question  has  never  been  presented,  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Are  employes  allowed  to  appear  as  informers? 

Answer.  They  are. 

Question.  Are  they  allowed  to  have  any  share  of  the  proceeds  re- 
sulting from  the  detection  of  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  ? 

Answer.  They  wTould  be  treated  as  anybody  else  would  be  treated 
by  the  law. 

Question.  I  would  like  to  know  whether  they  are  allowed  to  receive 
any  share  of  the  proceeds  received  from  a  detection  of  a  violation  of 
the  revenue  laws  ? 

Answer.  They  are  not  prohibited  by  the  revenue  officers.  They 
would  be  allowed  it  if  they  claimed  it.  My  answer  would  be,  that 
wherever  parties  appear  and  claim  an  informer's  share,  they  have  it, 
whether  they  are  connected  with  the  revenue  department  or  not. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  know  of  an  employe  in  tlie  custom-house  to 
have  an  informer's  share  of  the  proceeds? 

Answer.  I  never  did. 


TESTIMONY. 


113 


Question.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  such  a  case? 

Answer.  Nothing  of  the  kind  has  transpired. 

Question.  Why  do  they  not  get  an  informer's  share? 

Answer.  Because  they  are  not  informers  and  are  not  entitled  to  it. 

Question.  Have  they  never  detected  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  ? 

Answer.  My  attention  is  frequently  called  by  the  clerks  to  seeming 
irregularities  in  various  ways. 

Question.  Since  you  have  been  here  have  the  employes  of  the  cus- 
tom-house ever  detected  any  violation  of  the  revenue  laws,  so  as  to  be 
entitled  to  an  informer's  share  of  the  proceeds? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge  or  recollection. 

Question.  You  have  known,  however,  informers  outside  of  the 
custom-house  who  have  had  a  share  of  the  proceeds  as  informers  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Many  cases? 

Answer.  Several. 

Question.  Do  you  know  or  have  you  heard  of  any  persons  in  the 
employ  of  the  custom-house  receiving  more  money  than  they  were 
entitled  to  as  their  regular  compensation  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  In  what  case? 

Answer.  In  the  case  of  an  entry  clerk  in  the  collector's  office.  I 
traced  a  perpetration  of  the  fraud  to  him,  and  to  parties  outside  of  the 
custom-house.  An  examination  of  the  case  showed  that  he  had  re- 
ceived some  considerable  money,  but  how  much  I  cannot  tell.  This, 
for  instance,  would  be  one  form  of  fraud  :  a  house  having  considerable 
importation  would  employ  a  custom-house  broker,  as  he  is  called,  and 
pay  him  the  proper  amouut  of  duties  according  to  their  showing,  but 
I  would  find,  on  examination  of  the  facts,  that  the  government  did  not 
receive  more  than  one-sixth  the  amount  they  should  receive.  The 
matter  is  now  under  investigation  here  by  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury 
and  ourselves,  and  it  will  show  that  the  money  which  the  government 
should  have  received  was  divided  among  a  number  of  persons  styled 
the  u  ring,"  comprising  some  persons  in  the  appraisers'  office  and 
-  outside  parties.  The  fraud  was  committed  by  making  false  papers 
and  passing  them  through. 

Question.  Is  it  that  kind  of  transactions  which  are  now  under  ex- 
amination by  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  He  was  sent  here  specially  by  the  Treasury  De- 
partment. The  subject  has  been  under  investigation  by  me  for  nearly 
twelve  months.  My  attention  was  attracted  by  certain  irregularities, 
and  by  patient  investigation  I  discovered  frauds  to  a  very  large 
amount,  and  to  a  very  great  extent  discovered  the  parties  who  perpe- 
trated them,  all  of  which  facts  will  be  reported  to  the  Treasury  De- 
partment. 

Question.  To  go  back  to  this  matter  of  Dennis,  Jones  &  Co.:  what 
was  the  difference  between  the  amount  the  government  did  receive  in 
that  case  and  the  amount  it  would  have  received  it  the  goods  had  been 
valued  as  your  folks  claimed  they  should  have  been  ? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  that  they  paid  much  more  finally  than 
the  difference  in  duties. 

Part  iii  8 


114 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  What  proportion  of  the  goods  in  their  store  were  liable 
to  confiscation  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  tell.  They  were  not  all  liable 
to  forfeiture,  as  some  of  them  were  invoiced  at  the  proper  price.  I 
should  say  that  perhaps  half  the  goods  they  had  on  hand  were  liable. 


New  York,  January  3,  1863. 

Frederick  W.  Jennings  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  Brooklyn. 

Question.  What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  I  am  master  cooper  in  the  Brooklyn  navy  yard. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  mode  of  supplying  the 
navy  yard  with  stores  of  various  kinds,  whether  by  contract  or 
otherwise  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  State  whether  the  supplies  are  usually  furnished  under 
contract,  or  by  purchase  by  the  navy  agent  in  open  market. 

Answer.  They  are  at  present  supplied  by  open  purchase  by  the  navy 
agent. 

Question.  Who  makes  the  purchases  ? 

Answer.  For  materials  I  want  in  my  department  I  make  a  requisi- 
tion ;  that  goes  to  Delano,  the  naval  constructor,  and  from  him  to  the 
admiral.  If  it  receives  the  sanction  of  the  two,  it  goes  to  the  store- 
keeper, and  from  him  to  the  navy  agent,  who  gives  orders  to  parties 
to  furnish  the  articles.  I  do  not  know  what  claims  those  parties  have. 
I  know  only  that  they  get  the  orders  and  I  afterwards  go  and  select 
the  goods.  To  find  out  who  furnishes  the  goods  I  have  to  go  to  the 
navy  agent  and  inquire. 

Question.  Do  you  determine  the  price  and  quality? 

Answer.  No,  sir.   I  determine  as  to  quality. 

Question.  Does  the  navy  agent  fix  upon  the  price  ? 

Answer.  The  navy  agent  has  sent  me  to  different  ones,  and  I  go 
and  ask  where  the  goods  are  which  I  came  to  select,  and  in  a  great 
many  instances  I  find  that  the  parties  themselves  are  not  manufac- 
turers or  dealers  in  the  articles. 

Question.  Have  you  a  knowledge  of  the  prices  paid  in  those  in- 
stances ? 

Answer.  I  am  supposed  to  have.  When  the  goods  are  furnished 
the  bill  comes  in. 

Question.  Are  you  able  to  state  whether  these  purchases  are  at  fair 
rates — the  usual  market  prices  ? 

Answer.  In  the  open  purchases  for  construction  I  have  something 
to  say  as  to  price. 

Question.  What  are  the  articles  purchased  for  construction  of  which 
you  speak  ? 

Answer.  Principally  staves  and  hoop-iron. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  frauds  practiced  in  the  purchase  of 
articles  for  the  navy  yard,  through  the  naval  officer  or  other  persons  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


115 


Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  collusions  through  which  exorbitant 
prices  have  been  charged  for  articles,  whether  purchased  through  con- 
tract or  in  the  open  market  by  the  navy  agent  or  by  other  persons? 

Answer.  I  would  state  that  when  I  got  my  position  at  the  yard,  and 
had  been  there  two  months,  I  was  waited  on  by  a  person  by  the  name  of 
Mossell.  This  man  had  been  furnishing  articles  through  open  pur- 
chase under  the  late  administration,  and  he  continued  to  do  so  up  to 
the  time  I  speak  of.  There  had  been  a  requisition  made  for  some 
hoop-poles,  and  this  man  came  into  my  office  one  day  and  seemed 
very  anxious  to  have  me  do  what  I  could  for  him  towards  securing 
the  supplying  of  the  coopers'  department  of  the  yard  with  the  ma- 
terials required  there.  I  had  known  the  man  previously,  and ..  had 
not  a  very  good  opinion  of  him.  I  told  him  I  had  nothing  to  do 
with  that  matter ;  that  the  navy  agent  had  all  that  to  attend  to.  fie 
intimated  that  if  I  would  assist  him  he  would  remunerate  me  for  my 
services.  He  offered  me  some  money.  He  pulled  out  his  pocket- 
book,  took  out  some  bills — I  do  not  know  the  amount — and  offered 
them  to  me.  I  refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  money,  or 
with  him,  and  referred  him  to  the  navy  agent.  I  asked  him  how  it 
was  that  he  charged  such  heavy  prices.  He  gave  me  to  understand 
there  were  parties  to  whom  he  had  to  pay  commissions  in  order  to 
get  these  contracts.  Since  that  time  he  has  furnished  several  orders; 
one,  not  more  than  two  months  ago,  for  15,000  staves.  That  comes 
under  my  department,  but  is  subject  to  the  orders  of  the  provision 
and  clothing  department. 

Question.  Had  you  supervision  or  control  over  the  prices  of  the  arti- 
cles ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  wrong  in  the  orders  being  given 
to  him  ? 

Answer.  Nothing  beyond  the  circumstance  of  his  approaching  me. 
The  market  price  at  that  time  was  from  $110  to  S 1 15  per  thousand, 
and  the  price  of  the  staves  delivered  at  the  yard  was  $127  50  per 
thousand. 

Question.  Was  this  order  given  to  him  by  the  navy  agent? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  once  required  some  staves,  and  went  to  select 
them.  1  went  to  the  navy  agent  and  inquired  to  whom  the  order  to 
furnish  them  had  been  given,  and  he  told  me  to  call  upon  Mr.  Mos- 
sell. His  office  is  in  Murray  street.  I  called,  but  could  not  find  him 
in.  I  went  where  I  was  told  to  go — up  to  Tenth  street — to  select  the 
timber,  and  then  I  sent  one  of  my  foremen  over  to  take  the  dimen- 
sions of  what  I  wanted,  and  to  notify  Mr.  Mossell  where  the  staves 
were  I  had  selected.  In  another  instance  I  know  of  Mr.  Mossell  hav- 
ing an  order  for  20,000  hoop-poles  which  he  could  not  furnish.  The 
order  was  running  five  or  six  weeks  without  his  furnishing  the  arti- 
cles. 

Question.  Was  there  difficulty  in  obtaining  hoop-poles  in  the  market 
at  tbat  time  ? 

Answer.  I  presume  so  from  the  fact  that  he  did  not  furnish  them. 
Since  that  time  I  have  been  served  with  a  copy  of  an  order  issued  by 
Admiral  Paulding,  which  makes  it  imperative  upon  me  to  go  to  the 


116 


TESTIMONY. 


navy  agent,  and  to  be  guided  by  his  instructions  in  the  purchase  of 
articles.  Neither  I  nor  other  officers  of  the  yard  are  to  go  to  any 
other  party. 

The  copy  of  the  order  is  as  follows : 

"  Order. 

"Navy  Yard,  New  York,  November  25,  1862. 

u  Officers,  master  workmen,  and  others,  employed  under  this  com- 
mand, will,  when  articles  are  required  to  be  procured  by  the  navy  agent 
on  open  purchase  and  to  be  selected,  observe  the  following  order : 

"They  will  call  directly  on  the  navy  agent  and  inform  him  of  their 
husiness  and  the  articles  they  are  sent  to  select.  They  are  not  to  go 
previously  to  any  place  to  ascertain  where  and  on  what  terms  the  ar- 
ticles can  be  procured,  as  such  duty  pertains  to  the  navy  agent,  and 
from  whom  alone  they  will  receive  directions  for  their  guidance,  as  he 
may  see  proper  to  give  them. 

"  This  order  applies  to  every  article,  no  matter  of  what  kind,  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  procure  in  the  manner  above  described,  and  all 
persons  are  directed  to  strictly  observe  its  provisions. 

"H.  PAULDING,  Commandant. 

"Mr.  F.  W.  Jennings, 

"  Master  Cooper.*1 

Question.  Are  there  large  amounts  of  purchases  now  made  in  open 
market  ? 

Answer.  I  am  told  that  most  all  the  articles  are  now  purchased  in 
open  market  ;  that  the  contracts,  which  are  generally  given  out  in 
July,  have  not  been  given  out  yet. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  economy  of  the  two 
modes  of  purchase  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  either  one  would  do  very  well  provided  parties 
who  are  in  the  business,  connected  with  the  various  articles  supplied, 
could  have  the  furnishing  of  the  articles. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  instances  of  grossly  exorbi- 
tant rates  above  the  market  price  being  paid  for  articles  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  should  say  that  I  think  the  system  of  open 
purchases  would  be  better  for  the  government,  provided  parties  who 
deal  in  the  articles  called  for  could  have  the  furnishing  of  them  in 
market. 


Washington,  January  16,  1863. 
Simon  Stevens  again  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  ex- 
amined as  follows: 

Question.  We  put  to  you  now  the  questions  which  were  propounded 
to  you  on  a  former  occasion,  when  you  declined  to  answer:  How  much 
money,  in  the  aggregate,  has  been  paid  over,  under  the  labor  con- 


TESTIMONY. 


117 


tract,  to  Mr.  Wra.  Allen  Butler,  or  to  hisN  account,  or  to  Mr.  George 
W.  Parsons,  his  law  partner,  for  account  of  Mr.  Butler? 

Answer.  Having  declined  to  answer  this  question  for  reasons  here- 
tofore given,  I  now,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  Mr.  Butler  and 
Mr.  Parsons,  willingly  answer.  About  $42,000;  it  maybe  a  hundred 
dollars  more  or  a  hundred  dollars  less. 

Question.  You  say  you  held  this  contract  from  May  11,  1861,  until 
its  expiration  by  its  own  terms,  September  5,  1862.  State  the  net 
profits  of  that  contract  during  that  time. 

Answer.  I  attended  to  the  negotiations  and  superintendence  of  the 
concern,  and  held  the  contract,  as  I  have  stated,  for  which  I  received 
one-eighth  of  the  profits,  which  was  my  whole  interest,  except  as 
trustee.  The  net  profits  of  the  concern  for  the  time  mentioned  were 
about  $60,000. 

Question.  Did  they  exceed  $60,000  ? 

Answer.  They  may  exceed  it  a  hundred  dollars,  and  they  may  be 
that  much  less. 

Question.  Did  they  exceed  $61,000  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  think  they  did. 

Question.  Does  this  $60,000  include  the  $20,000  paid  for  the  con- 
tract to  Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  ? 

Answer.  That  is  the  net  profits  exclusive  of  the  amount  paid  to 
them. 

Question.  To  the  net  profits  of  the  contract  itself  then,  during 
that  time,  you  must  add  the  $20, 000  which  you  paid  out  for  the 
contract. 

Answer.  Of  course. 

Question.  Is  there  to  be  added  to  that  also  $1,000  paid  to  Mr. 
Odell  for  commissions  for  securing  the  transfer  of  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Odell  was  acting  for  Mr.  William  Allen  Butler,  the 
attorney  for  the  parties  in  interest,  and  what  commissions  he  paid 
Mr.  Odell  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  the  $60,000  of  which  you  have  testified,  and  the 
$20,000  paid  for  the  contract  to  Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.,  include  all 
that  was  received  of  the  government  under  the  contract,  except  what 
was  paid  out  to  carry  on  the  requirements  of  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  As  far  as  I  know. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  $80,000  thus  testified  to 
was  what  was  left  in  the  hands  of  the  contractors  after  they  had  paid 
out  what  was  required  to  fulfil  the  obligations  of  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  interest  had  Mr.  Bixby  still  under  the  contract 
after  the  contract  had  been  sold  by  him  to  you  and  Mr.  Wyman  ? 
Answer.  He  acquired  three-eighths  of  the  interest  in  the  contract. 
Question.  From  whom  did  he  obtain  it  ? 
Answer.  From  me. 

Question.  What  was  the  consideration  of  that  purchase  by  him 
from  you  ? 

Answer.  I  have  heretofore  stated  in  my  testimony. 
Question.  Please  repeat  it. 


118 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  It  is  as  follows:  after  the  execution  of  the  contract  I  era- 
ployed  Francis  M.  Bixby  to  conduct  the  business,  he  being  one  of  the 
original  contractors  with  the  government.  Under  that  arrangement 
he  acquired  an  interest  under  me,  which  was  three-eighths.  These 
large  profits  arise  on  account  of  the  war  having,  to  a  great  extent, 
stopped  importations. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  the  importations  at  the  custom-house 
in  New  York,  for  the  year  ending  September  last,  compare  with  those 
of  the  year  next  preceding  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  positive  means  of  knowing,  except  down  to 
September,  1862. 

Question.  Do  not  you  know  that  the  business  done  at  the  custom- 
house in  New  York  the  last  year  has  exceeded  that  of  any  other  year 
since  the  foundation  of  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know,  without  comparing  the  books  containing 
the  accounts  of  the  number  of  packages,  expenses  of  cartage,  and 
labor  connected  with  importations.  I  do  not  believe  the  number  of 
packages  which  have  come  to  the  public  stores  is  as  large  by  several 
thousand  this  last  year  as  it  has  been  on  several  previous  years. 

Question.  State  what  knowledge  you  have  in  reference  to  that 
matter. 

Answer.  I  have  examined  the  books,  but  do  not  recollect  distinctly 
about  the  matter.    My  impression  is  that  the  number  is  not  so  large. 

Question.  In  your  testimony  taken  in  New  York  you  said  you  con- 
sidered the  labor  contract  cheaper  for  the  government  because,  if  in 
the  hands  of  the  collector,  members  of  Congress  and  other  individuals 
urge  upon  him  the  appointment  of  more  men  than  are  necessary  for 
the  performance  of  the  work,  and  because,  if  he  refuses,  they  might 
threaten  him  with  congressional  investigation.  What  members  of 
Congress  have  urged  upon  the  collector  the  appointment  of  men 
whose  appointment  he  has  refused,  whereupon  such  members  of  Con- 
gress threatened  him  with  congressional  investigation  ? 

Answer.  Of  my  own  knowledge,  I  do  not  know  of  any  members  of 
Congress. 

Question.  Under  ordinary  circumstances  from  your  experience, 
what  number  of  persons  is  necessary  to  perform  the  labor  under  this 
labor  contract? 

Ai  swer.  To  do  the  whole  work  at  the  public  stores,  if  by  contract, 
ninety  men,  at  two  dollars  a  day,  would  be  sufficient  under  the  most 
pressing  circumstances.  Contractors  select  their  men  without  regard 
to  party  politics,  taking  only  first-class  men  to  do  their  work.  They 
have  no  political  pensioners,  and  those  men  work  from  the  time  they 
enter  the  store  in  the  morning  until  evening. 

Question.  What  number  of  men  are  now  employed  in  performing 
that  labor,  or  have  been  employed  since  September  last? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know,  of  my  own  knowledge,  but  I  am  informed 
that  they  employ  from  110  to  115. 

Question.  How  many  did  you  employ  while  you  were  executing 
that  contract  ? 

Answer.  When  the  importations  were  very  light,  our  number  was 


TESTIMONY. 


119 


as  low,  one  week,  I  think,  as  sixty,  and,  speaking  without  my  books, 
I  think  we  had,  at  the  highest,  between  eighty  and  ninety. 
Question.  What  did  you  pay  your  men  ? 

Answer.  By  the  terms  of  the  contract  you  will  see  that  we  were 
obliged  to  pay  two  dollars  a  day  to  laborers. 

Question.  What  is  the  government  paying  now  ? 

Answer.  I.  am  informed  that  they  are  paying  from  forty  to  fifty 
dollars  a  month. 

Question.  What  expense  is  there  in  connexion  with  the  public 
stores  additional  to  the  employment  of  the  men  and  the  performance 
of  the  labor  ? 

Answer.  The  additional  expense  is  cartage  for  carting  these  pack- 
ages to  the  public  stores. 

Question.  What  is  the  cost  of  such  cartage  ? 

Answer.  I  should  say  that  the  ordinary  cost  of  cartage  would  be 
from  twenty-five  to  thirty  thousand  dollars  a  year.  Twenty-five 
thousand  dollars  is  very  low. 

Question.  Would  not  the  government  be  benefited  by  having  this 
work  done  under  the  contract  system,  if  the  contract  was  put  out  to 
the  lowest  bidder? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  think  not.  The  contractor,  in  the  first  place, 
must  be  a  person  friendly  to  the  collector,  because  the  collector  is 
the  natural  custodian  of  the  goods,  and  has  to  give  heavy  bail  for 
their  safe-keeping.  If  you  open  the  contract  to  everybody,  you  will 
get  persons  who  will  come  in  conflict  with  the  collector.  They  must 
work  in  some  kind  of  unison. 


New  York,  January  10,  1863. 

Francis  M.  Bixby  sworn: 

Question.  What  is  your  residence  and  business? 
Answer.  I  reside  in  New  York.    I  am  engaged  in  the  storage  and 
shipping  business. 

Question.  Have  you  any  connexion  with  the  custom-house  now? 
Answer.  Well,  no  direct  connexion. 
Question.  Have  you  any  indirectly? 

Answer.  Well,  sir,  I  am  part  proprietor  in  a  warehouse  where  im- 
ported goods  are  stored. 

Question.  Have  you  any  other  connexion  with  the  custom-house  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Were  you  one  of  the  original  contractors  in  what  is  called 
the  labor  contract  ? 
Answer.  I  was. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  part  or  interest  in  the  sale  and  transfer 
of  that  contract  ? 

Answer.  I  did.  I  owned  one-quarter  interest  in  the  contract.  I 
was  the  business  partner  of  the  firm  of  Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.  As 
regards  the  transfer  of  the  contract,  we  were  all  active  in  that. 
Shortly  after  Mr.  Barney  came  into  office,  the  question  of  the  dispos- 


120 


TESTIMONY. 


ing  of  the  contract  was  agitated.  Two  of  my  associates,  Messrs. 
Craig  and  Mcintyre,  were  anxious  to  sell  out.  Mr.  John  C.  Mather 
was  the  other  partner.  The  reasons  for  desiring  to  sell  were,  that 
during  the  continuance  of  the  contract  under  a  democratic  adminis- 
tration, it  met  with  considerable  opposition.  My  partners  believed 
they  would  not  be  any  better  treated  by  the  republicans,  and  they 
advised  selling  out.  I  was  opposed  to  selling  out,  and  gave  as  my 
reasons,  that  it  was  not  a  party  matter.  Parties  had  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  Mr.  Barney  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  only  to  pay  the  weekly 
stipend.  I  held  that  it  was  really  an  advantage  to  the  government, 
that  it  would  have  to  run  its  course,  and  could  not  be  interfered  with. 
However,  we  subsequently  sold  the  contract,  and  I  obtained  an  interest 
in  it,  through  Mr.  Stevens,  which  was  given  me  for  superintending 
the  business. 

Question.  What  was  your  interest  in  it  after  its  sale,  and  during 
the  remainder  of  its  existence? 

Answer.  I,  perhaps,  had  no  legal  interest  in  it  after  that,  but  Mr. 
Stevens  gave  me  a  per  cent,  for  managing  the  business. 

Question.  What  were  the  inducements  for  you  to  sell,  finally? 

Answer.  Mr.  Mclntyre  and  Mr.  Craig  insisted  upon  selling,  and  I 
finally  yielded,  Mr.  Stevens  offering  me  a  portion  of  the  profits  for 
my  services. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  what  the  consideration  for 
the  sale  was  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  $20,000. 
Question.  By  whom  was  that  sum  paid  ? 

Answer.  One-half  of  it  was  paid  by  Mr.  Stevens,  nominally.  The 
other  half  was  paid  by  Mr.  Butler  for  Mr.  Wyman. 
Question.  What  do  mean  by  nominally  ? 

Answer.  I  mean  that  he  handed  over  the  money,  or  its  representa- 
tive. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  that  it  was  not  really  his  money? 

Answer.  Well,  he  gave  his  note  for  his  share,  which  note  I  accepted. 
He  could  not  pay  the  money,  and,  as  I  was  not  willing  to  take  obliga- 
tions without  having  the  right  of  reimbursing  myself,  it  was  arranged 
that  I  should  receive  the  money  from  the  custom-house,  and  deduct 
from  the  profits  of  the  contract  the  proportion  which  was  my  share 
for  superintending  the  work. 

Question.  Was  Stevens  the  real  purchaser,  or  was  there  somebody 
behind  him  ? 

Answer.  He  was  the  real  purchaser.  One-half  was  paid  in  this 
way:  I  held  the  authority  for  collecting  the  weekly  payments  from 
the  custom-house.  The  other  half  was  paid  with  the  check  of  Wil- 
liam Allen  Butler  for  $10,000.  $5,000  of  that  was  paid  to  Mr.  Mcln- 
tyre and  $5,000  to  Mr.  Craig. 

Question.  Did  it  come  to  your  knowledge,  from  any  source,  that  it 
was  contemplated  to  take  away  from  you  the  general-order  business  ? 

Answer.  Nothing  of  that  kind  came  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Were  the  general  orders  under  the  control  of  the  col- 
lector, to  be  given  to  whom  he  pleased  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


121 


Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  were  holding  that  business  under  the  collector  him- 
self? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  The  general-order  goods  were  sent  to  our 
warehouse  under  his  direction. 

Question.  Was  it  through  the  general  orders  that  you  were  enabled 
to  make  the  profits  on  your  contracts — to  make  money  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Could  you  make  as  much  money  on  the  contract  without 
the  general-order  business  as  you  could  with  it  ? 

Answer.  The  general-order  business  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
contract;  did  not  affect  it  in  any  manner. 

Question.  If  you  had  been  deprived  of  the  general  orders,  would 
the  labor  contract  have  been  as  profitable? 

Answer.  Precisely.  It  would  not  have  affected  it  in  the  least  if 
the  general-order  business  had  been  taken  away. 

Question.  Were  you  made  aware  that  you  could  continue  to  have 
the  general  orders  if  you  sold  out? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  continued  to  have  an  interest  in  the  general 
orders? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  had  the  same  amount  of  general  orders  since 
you  sold  the  contract  as  before  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  the  same  general  average.  There  is  no  other 
storehouse  in  one  of  the  districts  where  they  could  be  sent,  and  we 
have  all  there  are  for  that  district.  I  am  positive  and  emphatic  that 
I  did  not  sell  out  the  contract  because  I  was  apprehensive  that  the 
general-order  business  would  be  taken  away  from  our  storehouse. 

Question.  Were  any  of  the  negotiations  in  reference  to  the  transfer 
of  the  contract  made  when  you  were  not  present  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  was  always  present,  and  I  have  a  knowledge  of 
all  the  negotiations  in  that  matter. 

Question.  Was  it  intimated  to  you  from  any  source  whatever  that 
unless  you  transferred  that  contract  you  would  lose  the  general- 
order  business  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  nothing  of  the  kind  was  ever  intimated  to  me 
from  any  quarter. 

Question.  Who  were  the  parties  who  negotiated  this  whole  business 
of  the  sale  and  transfer? 

Answer.  The  sale  was  made  to  Mr.  Stevens,  who  acted  for  half  the 
contract,  and  to  Mr.  Wm.  Allen  Butler,  who  acted  for  the  other  half. 

Question.  Had  anybody  else  any  knowledge  of  the  transfer  or  of 
the  reasons  for  it  ? 

Answer.  No  other  parties,  unless,  perhaps,  Mr.  Odell  knew 
about  it. 

Question.  Was  anybody  else  in  any  situation  to  know  of  the  trans- 
fer, and  the  reasons  for  it  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 


122 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  fitting  up  of  any  office 
in  the  public  store  building  for  any  one  ? 

Answer.  When  we  were  in  the  public  stores  in  Broad  street  we 
had  an  office  assigned  us  there.  Another  office  was  assigned  us  when 
we  moved  into  the  store  in  Broadway.  It  was  remodelled,  and  we 
made  some  few  alterations  in  it,  which  we  paid  for  ourselves.  It  was 
a  mere  matter  of  putting  up  a  few  partitions.  The  furniture  of  the 
office  was  paid  for  by  myself,  and  its  whole  value  would  probably 
amount  to  about  $50.  Independent  of  the  safe,  the  furniture  con- 
sisted of  a  carpet,  an  old  desk,  of  little  value,  and  two  or  three  chairs. 

Question.  Was  that  the  only  office  you  had  in  the  public  buildings? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  any  other  office  fitted  up  for  any  party  connected 
with  this  contract,  and  used  by  any  party  having  an  interest  in  this 
contract? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Who  paid  the  rent  of  this  office  you  speak  of? 

Answer.  Well,  the  government  paid  the  rent  for  the  whole  building, 
and  we  were  assigned  an  office  in  it. 

Question.  Was  there  any  other  expense  the  government  was  at 
about  it  ? 

Answer.  None  whatever. 

Question.  Who  occupied  this  office  ? 

Answer.  The  contractors. 

Question.  Had  you  any  other  office  anywhere  ? 
Answer.  Not  in  that  building,  sir. 

Question.  Why  did  you  require  to  have  an  office  in  the  public 
stores  for  the  contractors  ? 

Answer.  Well,  sir,  we  had  it  in  order  to  have  a  place  convenient 
to  oversee  the  workmen;  to  receive  any  complaints  against  any- 
body connected  with  the  business  for  failure  in  the  performance  of 
duty.  It  could  not  well  be  elsewhere.  Our  business  was  all  there; 
the  labor  was  done  there;  we  had  to  superintend  the  labor  there; 
and  it  was  every  way  proper  to  have  an  office  in  the  same  building. 

Question.  How  many  men  were  employed  in  the  storehouse  on  the 
labor  contract? 

Answer.  I  have  here  a  pay  roll — the  last  one  that  was  made  out 
under  the  contract — when  our  force  was  as  low  as  it  had  ever  been. 
From  that  pay-roll  I  make  seventy-six  men  employed  each  day  for 
the  last  week  of  the  contract. 

Question.  How  did  that  compare  with  previous  weeks  ? 

Answer.  The  number  of  men  would  vary  with  the  business  of  the 
store.  This  was  among  the  lowest  we  ever  had.  We  have  had  as 
many  as  one  hundred  and  fifty. 

Question.  Can  you  give  me  the  net  profits  of  that  contract  ? 

Answer.  I  have  here  the  statement  of  the  last  week  on  that  point. 
The  pay-roll  for  labor  was  $851  92;  the  expense  for  cartage  was 
£749  47;  and  our  incidental  expenses  for  that  week  were  about 
$154  31.  That  would  make  a  total  of  $1,755  70.  This  is  one  of 
the  lowest  week's  expenses.    The  contract  price  was  $123,000  a 


TESTIMONY. 


123 


year,  which  would  be  $2,365  38  a  week.  That  would  show  for  that 
week  a  profit  of  $609  68. 

Question.  How  did  that  compare  with  the  previous  weeks? 

Answer.  The  business  at  this  period  of  the  year  was  less  than  at 
other  periods.  During  certain  months  the  business  is  light.  Our 
expenses  have  in  several  instances  exceeded  our  receipts,  and  it  was 
only  by  making  pretty  good  profits  in  other  weeks  that  we  made  up 
the  deficiency  and  our  profit. 

Question.  What  were  the  entire  net  profits  up  to  the  time  of  the 
transfer  of  this  contract  to  Stevens  &  Wyman  ? 

Answer.  About  $28,000. 

Question.  Did  it  exceed  $30, 000  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  it  was  only  a  fraction  over  $28,000.  I  received 
a  fraction  over  $7,000  for  my  share,  which  was  one-quarter  of  the 
whole;  and  I  tHnk  my  services  were  worth  fully  that  for  the  time  I 
gave  to  the  business,  and  that  was  about  sixteen  months,  if  I  recollect 
right.  I  know  there  have  been  a  great  many  comments  made  on  this 
contract.  Many  persons  have  alluded  to  the  item  we  paid  for  labor 
as  the  whole  expense  we  were  subject  to,  when  in  fact  the  labor  was 
not  half  the  expense.  The  item  of  cartage  was  nearly  as  large  as  the 
expense  for  labor;  and  there  were  various  failures  and  shortcomings 
on  the  part  of  the  laborers,  for  which  we  were  responsible,  and  which 
we  had  to  make  up.  When  we  took  the  contract  the  expenses  at  the 
public  stores  were  about  $100, 000  a  year  more  than  our  contract  price. 
The  expenses  are  now  somewhat  less.  The  contract  compelled  us  to 
pay  $2  a  day  for  good,  bad,  and  indifferent  workmen.  The  govern- 
ment are  now  paying  from  $30  to  $50  per  month.  The  reason  we  got 
along  as  well  as  we  did  is  we  employed  men  adapted  to  their  business. 
It  has  been  stated  that  Mr.  Schell  and  certain  members  of  Congress 
were  interested  in  this  contract.  I  wish  to  state  that  no  persons  what- 
ever, excepting  us  four,  were,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  interested 
in  this  contract;  no  other  but  us  four  received  any  of  the  profits. 

Question.  How  many  clerks  were  in  the  employ  of  the  contractors? 

Answer.  We  had  a  cashier. 

Question.  By  whom  was  he  paid  ? 

Answer.  By  ourselves. 

Question.  Had  you  any  clerk  in  your  employ  paid  by  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Baum,  however,  one  of  the  receiving  clerks 
in  the  public  stores,  was  in  the  habit  of  calling  the  roll  of  the  laborers. 
That  was  before  his  public  duties  commenced  in  the  morning.  As 
receiving  clerk,  he  had  the  general  supervision  of  the  work  in  the 
store.  He  did  this  calling  of  the  roll  in  addition  to  his  duties  for  the 
government,  and  before  his  duties  for  the  government  commenced; 
and  he  had  no  additional  compensation  for  it.  We  paid  him  nothing 
for  it. 

Question.  What  interest  did  the  government  have  in  the  proper 
discharge  of  the  duties  of  your  men? 

Answer.  Well,  the  government  officers  exercised  some  supervision, 
to  see  that  their  interests  were  protected.  They  were  interested  in 
having  the  work  done  promptly,  and  in  accordance  wTith  the  contract. 


124 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Did  any  other  government  clerk  discharge  duties  for  you? 

Answer.  Mr.  Dempsey,  a  government  clerk,  made  out  the  pay-roll. 
Uis  duties  were  to  answer  inquiries  relative  to  the  business  of  the 
store,  and  to  act  as  clerk  in  the  storekeeper's  office;  he  was  paid  by 
the  government.  He  had  been  in  the  habit  of  making  out  the  pay- 
rolls for  years  before  our  contract.  It  probably  occupied  him  about 
half  an  hour  a  week,  and  he  did  it  at  times  when  he  was  not  employed 
for  the  government.  He  never  did  any  other  business  or  duties  for 
us.  We  never  paid  him  a  cent  for  his  services,  as  it  wras  a  mere 
trifle  to  do. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  any  packages  having  been 
carried  from  the  steamers  to  the  public  stores,  and  then  carried  up  to 
the  fourth  loft  of  the  building,  and  afterwards  returned  and  opened? 

Answer.  There  was  on  one  occasion  a  package  of  samples  sent  by 
Mr.  Stevens's  brother  from  London.  It  came  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  business  to  the  public  stores  for  examination,  and  after  it  had  been 
examined  and  found  to  contain  nothing  of  dutiable  value,  Mr.  Stevens 
took  possession  of  the  package.  He  took  it  into  an  office,  opened  it, 
and  sent  the  various  samples  to  the  parties  to  whom  they  were  directed. 
That  was  the  only  instance  of  the  kind  that  ever  occurred  within  my 
knowledge. 


New  York,  January  10,  1863. 
William  D.  Robinson  (cashier)  recalled: 

Question.  Can  you  give  any  fuller  explanation  or  history  of  the 
commissions  received  by  the  collector  upon  the  fees  of  State  officers 
than  you  did  before? 

Answer.  Those  fees  have  always  been  collected  on  the  entry  of  a 
vessel  into  port,  for  the  convenience  of  the  merchants  as  well  as  of 
the  State  officers,  by  the  collector.  A  merchant  entering  a  vessel  or 
goods  pays,  at  the  same  time  with  his  duties,  the  fees  of  the  State 
officers,  and  it  would  put  them  to  great  inconvenience  to  collect  them 
elsewhere.  It  is  one  of  the  duties  of  the  collector  to  see  that  these 
fees  are  paid.  There  is  a  law  of  the  United  States  which  compels 
him  to  see  that  all  the  fees  due  the  State  officers  from  vessels  are  paid 
before  he  grants  a  clearance.  It  is  not  his  duty  to  collect  State  officers' 
fees,  but  to  ascertain  before  clearance  of  vessels  that  all  lawful  fees 
and  charges  against  them  have  been  paid. 

Question.  What  does  the  act  of  Congress  make  it  his  duty  to  do? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  the  words  of  the  law,  but  I  understand 
his  duty  to  be,  in  respect  to  these  fees,  to  see  that  all  the  claims  of 
the  State  officers  are  satisfied  before  he  can  clear  a  vessel. 

Question.  By  what  arrangement,  or  whose  authority  is  a  commission 
on  these  fees  paid  to  the  collector? 

Answer.  By  an  arrangement  between  the  collector  and  these  offi- 
cers. At  every  change  of  administration  these  officers  wait  upon 
the  collector,  as  a  matter  of  form,  and  say  it  is  understood  that  you 
will  collect  tbe  State  fees  on  the  same  terms  as  heretofore. 


TESTIMONY. 


125 


Question.  Does  the  law  of  Congress  require  the  collector  to  ascer- 
tain whether  these  fees  are  paid  before  clearances  are  granted? 
Answer.  I  think  it  does,  but  am  not  positive. 

Question.  Is  it  any  part  of  the  duty  of  Mr.  Barney  as  collector  to 
collect  these  fees  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not.    He  does  it  merely  as  an  individual. 


New  York,  January  10,  1863. 

Augustus  Schell  sworn: 

Question.  Will  you  please  state  whether  you  have  been  collector 
of  the  port  of  New  York? 

Answer.  I  have  been  collector  of  this  port.  I  entered  upon  the 
duties  of  the  office  on  the  1st  day  of  July,  1857,  and  terminated  on 
the  8th  of  April,  1861. 

Question.  Do  you  hold  any  official  position  under  the  government 
now  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Can  you  state  to  the  committee  what  fees  and  emolu- 
ments you  received  as  collector? 

Answer.  I  am  not  able  to  state  the  amount. 
Question.  Can  you  give  an  approximation  ? 

Answer.  What  I  received  appears  in  the  accounts  of  the  cashier 
and  auditor. 

Question.  Is  there  nothing  on  the  auditor's  books  but  what  you 
received  from  confiscations,  penalties,  and  seizures  ? 

Answer.  That  is  all.  I  received  nothing  but  what  appears  on  the 
auditor's  books. 

Question.  Are  there  any  commissions  received  by  the  collector 
which  do  not  appear  in  the  auditor's  office? 

Answer.  There  are.  The  collector  acts  as  an  agent  for  the  port 
wardens,  the  harbor  masters,  and  the  physician  at  the  health  office; 
and  certain  commissions  are  allowed  him  by  those  officers  for  collect- 
ing the  fees. 

Question.  How  is  it  that  the  collector  is  entitled  to  these  commis- 
sions? 

Answer.  He  is  not  entitled  as  collector. 

Question.  How  comes  it  that  he  receives  these  commissions  ? 

Answer.  The  State  officers,  who  are  entitled  to  these  fees,  with  a 
view  to  insuring  their  collection,  and  also  of  facilitating  the  collection, 
make  an  arrangement  with  the  person  who  holds  the  office  of  collector 
for  this  port  to  collect  these  fees  as  the  vessels  arrive. 

Question.  When  you  came  into  office  did  you  have  any  conference 
with  the  Treasury  Department  at  Washington  on  the  subject  of  these 
collections  ? 

Answer.  I  called  the  attention  of  the  department  to  the  practice 
which  had  been  carried  on  at  this  office,  and  inquired  whether  there 
was  any  objection  to  its  being  continued?  They  answered  from 
Washington  that  they  saw  no  objection,  and  I  did  continue  it. 


126 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Were  these  collections  continued  under  your  administra- 
tion upon  the  same  terms  as  under  Mr.  Redfield  and  your  other  prede- 
cesssors  ? 

Answer.  I  understood  so. 

Question.  It  was  the  result  of  an  arrangement  between  you  and 
the  parties  who  received  these  fees. 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Is  there  any  other  mode  of  collecting  these  fees  as  con- 
veniently and  practically  as  this? 

Answer.  I'think  not.  There  is  no  other  mode  so  convenient  and 
feasible. 

Question.  Could  anybody  be  appointed  outside  to  collect  these  fees? 
Answer.  Not  well,  without  interfering  with  the  business  of  the 
custom-house. 

Question.  What  connexion  will  such  an  outside  collecter  have  with 
the  custom-house? 

Answer.  He  would  be  bound  to  inspect  our  records  constantly, 
with  reference  to  the  liability  of  these  vessels  to  pay  the  fees. 


New  York,  January  10,  1863. 
Samlel  G.  Ogden  (auditor)  recalled: 

Question.  You  made  a  statement  heretofore  to  this  committee  in 
reference  to  the  emoluments  received  by  Mr.  Barney,  as  collector  of 
this  port.  Will  you  now  state  those  received  by  Mr.  Schell,  his  pre- 
decessor ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  stated  the  emoluments  received  by  collectors 
generally  from  fines,  forfeitures,  and  seizures.  Mr.  Schell  received 
during  the  four  years  of  his  term,  or  from  July,  1857,  to  April,  1861, 
$53,545  24.  That  is  what  he  received  from  all  violations  of  the  rev- 
enue laws  in  any  shape. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Schell  derive,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  any  other 
income  than  these  seizures  and  the  commissions  he  received  from 
State  officers  ? 

Answer.  These  were  the  only  sources  of  his  revenue  by  virtue  of 
his  office.  The  fees  from  State  officers,  however,  are  not  considered 
as  received  by  the  collectors  in  virtue  of  their  office. 

Question.  This  is  all  he  received  excepting  salary? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  this  is  all  excepting  his  salary. 

Question.  Give  the  amount  in  each  year  from  fines,  penalties,  and 
seizures. 

Answer.  For  the  year,  from  July,  1857,  to  July,  1858,  he  received 
$9,103  19.  The  next  year,  from  July,  1858,  to  July,  1859,  $9,093  91. 
From  July,  1859,  to  July,  I860,  $18,458  89.  From  July,  1860,  to  the 
expiration  of  his  term  of  office,  including  sums  paid  to  him  in  cases 
adjudicated  or  settled  thereafter,  $16,909  25,  That  would  foot  up 
the  sum  of  $53,545  24. 


TESTIMONY. 


127 


Question.  Is  Mr.  Schell  entitled  to  a  share  in  pending  cases  not 
disposed  of  at  the  time  of  his  retiring  from  office  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  If  the  case  of  confiscation  was  commenced  by 
him  and  not  disposed  of  before  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  office,  he 
receives  his  share  whenever  it  is  disposed  of — that  is  to  say,  the 
emoluments  from  confiscations,  fines,  penalties,  &c,  go  to  the  collector, 
in  whose  term  of  office  the  prosecutions  were  commenced. 

Question.  You  have  no  means  of  telling  what  will  finally  be  received 
by  Mr.  Schell  from  pending  cases  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  nobody  can  tell  that;  we  never  can  tell  what  the 
courts  will  decree,  or  our  juries  will  decide. 

Question.  How  does  the  amount  received  by  Mr.  Schell,  during 
his  term  of  office,  compare  with  the  amount  received  by  his  prede- 
cessors ? 

Answer.  It  is  considerabiy  larger  than  was  received  by  his  prede- 
cessors generally. 


New  York,  January  10,  1863. 

George  Bisbee  sworn: 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
Answer.  In  the  city  of  New  York. 

Question.  Have  you  an  official  connexion  with  the  custom-house? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  engaged  as  a  clerk  in  the  third  division,  in 
charge  of  the  sample  office. 

Question.  Had  the  contractors  under  the  labor  contract  of  Messrs. 
Mclntyre,  Bixby  &  Co.,  anything  to  do  with  the  United  States  sample 
office? 

Answer.  They  had  no  control  over  it. 

Question.  Was  any  of  the  labor  performed  under  their  contract, 
performed  in  connexion  with  that  office  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  able  to  say.  I  did  know  at  that  time  how  the 
assistance  furnished  to  the  appraisers  was  employed.  Whether  it  was 
directed  by  the  custom-house  department,  or  whether  the  contractors 
supplied  all  the  labor,  I  did  not  know.  The  appraisers  had  a  man 
there. 

Question.  By  whom  were  the  goods  brought  there? 

Answer.  They  were  paid  for  bein^  brought  by  the  contractors. 
As  I  understand  the  matter  it  was  this:  that  the  contractors  should 
do  the  business  of  that  building  for  a  certain  amount  of  money,  and 
that  they  should  pay  the  cartage  on  goods  brought  to  the  public  store; 
and  when  the  contractors  afterwards  stipulated  that  the  government 
should  pay  for  goods  brought  to  the  sample  office,  Mr.  Guthrie  ob- 
jected, saying  that  these  goods  should  be  brought  in  without  charge. 
The  carmen  brought  the  goods  from  the  steamships  directly  to  the 
sample  office.  From  all  transient  vessels  the  goods  were  discharged 
at  35  New  street,  and  from  there  transferred  to  the  sample  office. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  any  of  the  contractors  under 


128 


TESTIMONY. 


the  labor  contract  interfering  with  the  duties  of  the  government  store- 
keeper ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Have  any  of  these  contractors  undertaken  to  interfere 
with  the  storekeeper,  who  was  Mr.  Gray,  I  believe? 
Answer.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  that  at  all. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  their  attempting  to  interfere 
with  the  duties  of  the  officers  in  the  sample  office? 

Answer.  1  have  no  knowledge  of  the  contractors  interfering,  but 
Mr.  Stevens  did  on  one  occasion  ask  me,  as  officer  in  charge  of  the 
sample  office,  to  facilitate  the  getting  out  of  a  certain  package,  wrhich 
it  was  said  was  sent  there  by  his  brother  in  Europe,  to  be  distributed 
among  certain  libraries  and  literary  institutions  in  this  country. 

Question.  Was  anybody  with  him  when  he  made  the  request? 

Answer.  A  broker,  Mr.  Willey,  was  with  him  at  the  time.  I  said 
to  Mr.  Stevens  I  had  no  means  of  facilitating  the  getting  out  of  any 
package  from  the  sample  office,  except  in  the  usual  way.  If  the 
package  was  dutiable,  it  must  be  transferred  to  the  appraiser's  office; 
if  it  was  not  dutiable,  he  could  get  it  at  any  time  by  calling  for  it  at 
the  sample  office.  Subsequently  Mr.  Willey  came  to  the  office,  and 
in  the  course  of  conversation  I  said  to  him  that  the  request  which 
Mr.  Stevens  made  of  me  was  a  singular  one.  It  appears  that  Mr. 
Wiltey  reported  what  I  said  of  Mr.  Stevens,  and  within  a  day  or  two 
after  Mr.  Stevens  came  into  the  office  and  said  that  he  heard  I  had 
been  making  remarks  about  him.  I  asked  him  in  what  particular. 
He  said  I  had  commented  on  our  conversation  in  regard  to  delivering 
the  package  some  two  or  three  days  before.  I  said  to  him  that  I  had 
remarked  to  Mr.  Willey  that  I  thought  the  request  he  made  was  a 
singular  one,  and  now,  since  he  had  brought  the  matter  up  again,  I 
regarded  it  as  still  more  singular.  He  said  that  he  did  not  choose  to 
have  men  in  that  building  making  comments  upon  his  proceedings, 
and  he  would  not  have  it;  that  the  building  was  not  large  enough  to 
hold  us  both,  and  that  he  would  complain  to  Mr.  Barney  of  my  con- 
duct in  that  matter.  I  said  I  would  be  glad  to  have  him  do  that,  and 
if  he  didn't  I  certainly  should.  On  several  occasions  after  that  I 
heard  that  he  reported  I  was  to  be  removed  from  the  sample  office. 
I  saw  Mr.  Barney  soon  after  and  told  him  what  had  occurred  between 
Mr.  Stevens  and  myself.  Mr.  Barney  said  that  Mr.  Stevens  had  no 
control  over  that  office;  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  that 
he  should  hold  me  only  responsible  for  what  was  done  there. 

Question.  What  was  the  reason  of  his  asking  you  to  facilitate  the 
getting  out  of  this  box?  what  did  you  understand  by  it? 

Answer.  I  thought  it  was  strange  that  a  man  who  had  been  so  long 
in  that  building  and  who  knew,  as  well  as  he  must  have  known,  that 
every  package  which  was  dutiable  must  be  transferred  to  the  ap- 
praiser's department,  and  every  package  which  was  not  dutiable 
would  be  delivered  to  him  at  once,  on  application  to  the  sample  office — 
I  say  1  thought  it  strange  that  he  should  ask  me  to  facilitate  the 
getting  out  of  a  package  under  those  circumstances. 


TESTIMONY. 


129 


Question.  What  did  you  understand  lie  desired  you  to  do  in  facili- 
tating the  getting  out  of  this  package  ? 

Answer.  My  understanding  was  this,  that  he  desired  to  get  the 
package  delivered  to  him  from  the  sample  office,  whether  it  was  du- 
tiable or  not;  for,  after  the  package  was  examined  and  ready  for 
delivery,  it  remained  in  the  office  some  two  days  or  more  uncalled 
for. 

Question.  What  did  vou  understand  he  came  there  with  a  broker 
for? 

Answer.  It  appeared  to  me  at  the  time,  and  afterwards  it  seemed 
to  me  more  certain,  that  his  object  was  to  see  if  I  would  not  deliver 
goods  from  that  office  in  an  irregular  way.  I  considered  this  to  be 
an  attempt  to  test  my  integrity. 

Question.  Did  you  give  Mr.  Stevens  to  understand  how  you  re- 
garded this  approach  to  you? 

Answer.  I  did  not,  except  by  implication.  I  think  tha,t  he  under- 
stood what  my  idea  was,  or  how  I  regarded  it.  I  intended  that  he 
should. 

Question.  Was  it  after  you  gave  him  to  understand  your  interpre- 
tation of  this  approach  that  he  sought  to  get  you  removed  ? 

Answer.  It  was  after  that  that  he  declared  expressly  that  he  would 
have  me  removed. 


New  York,  January  10,  1863. 
H.  B.  Stanton  (deputy  collector)  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Stanton? 
Answer.  I  reside  in  Brooklyn. 

Question.  What  is  your  official  position  in  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  I  am  one  of  the  deputy  collectors  of  the  port  of  New 
York,  and  have  a  general  charge  of  all  matters,  and  especially  law 
matters,  relating  to  the  seizure  of  goods  and  vessels  under  the  rev- 
enue laws. 

Question.  Will  you  state  the  mode  of  procedure  in  relation  to  seiz- 
ing goods  or  vessels  for  violations  of  the  revenue  laws  ? 

Answer.  I  will  state  the  general  mode,  and  in  brief,  without  going 
into  more  detail  than  may  be  necessary  to  explain  my  meaning. 
Whenever  goods  or  vessels  are  seized  for  alleged  violations  of  the 
revenue  laws  that  fact  is  promptly  reported  to  the  collector,  and  the 
papers  are  by  him  sent  to  me.  A  record  or  memorandum  is  imme- 
diately made  of  the  substance  of  these  papers,  and  thereupon  it  is 
the  custom  to  wait  a  reasonable  time  before  instituting  judicial  pro- 
ceedings for  forfeiture,  to  see  if  the  parties  claiming  the  seized  pro- 
perty have  any  excuses  or  explanations  to  make  in  regard  to  the 
grounds  of  the  seizure.  This  is  done,  because  it  occasionally  hap- 
pens, on  investigation,  that  there  was  no  sufficient  ground  for  seizure, 
and  thereupon  the  property  is  immediately  released.  It  is  also  done 
to  avoid  costs  to  parties,  or  to  the  government,  which  would  result 
from  the  commencement  of  a  prosecution  and  its  subsequent  discon- 
Part  iii  9 


130 


TESTIMONY. 


tinuance  on  the  ground  that  there  had  been  no  sufficient  cause  for 
seizure.  If  within  this  reasonable  time  no  excuses  or  explanations 
are  offered  by  parties,  and  no  propositions  for  adjusting,  by  way  of 
compromise,  are  made,  the  case  is  sent  to  the  United  States  district 
attorney  for  prosecution.  It  occasionally  happens  that,  after  a  case 
has  been  sent  to  the  United  States  district  attorney  for  prosecution, 
the  claimants  of  the  seized  property  propose  to  pay  the  appraised 
value  of  the  property,  with  the  costs  of  prosecution,  and  take  the 
property.  This  they  do.  generally,  because  there  is  some  special 
reason  why  they  want  the  property.  It  often  is  because  the  property 
was  imported  to  fill  some  special  order;  therefore,  in  this  class  of 
cases,  as  well  as  in  some  others,  it  is  often  a  great  convenience  to  the 
parties  to  have  their  property  on  paying  the  appraised  value  and  the 
costs  of  prosecution,  if  a  suit  has  been  instituted.  In  such  cases  a 
letter  is  sent  to  the  district  attorney  stating  the  facts  and  the  amount 
proposed  to  be  paid,  (which  is  the  appraised  value,)  and  asking  him 
to  discontinue  proceedings  against  the  property.  This  being  done, 
and  the  money  having  been  paid  into  court,  the  property  is  delivered 
by  the  marshal  to  the  claimants.  But  it  sometimes  happens,  while 
the  matter  is  waiting  for  explanations,  that  the  claimants  of  the 
seized  property,  before  the  case  has  been  sent  to  the  district  attor- 
ney, make  a  proposition  to  pay  the  appraised  value  of  the  goods 
seized  and  have  the  goods  delivered  to  them.  This  proposition  is 
now  always  in  writing,  signed  by  the  claiming  parties.  I  will  here 
give  a  copy  of  one  of  these  propositions: 

"  Custom-House,  New  York, 
"  Collector's  Office,  November  22,  1862. 

"Sir:  I,  George  Adams,  hereby  request  you  to  receive  the  sum  of 
$2,000,  being  the  appraised  value  of  two  cases,  marked  R  A,  23,  24, 
containing  embroideries,  and  silk  laces,  and  artificial  flowers,  which 
have  been  seized  by  you  for  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  of  the 
Uniied  States,  and  are  liable  to  forfeiture. 

"I  pay  this  sum  of  my  own  volition,  in  order  to  obtain  the  goods 
immediately,  and  to  save  costs,  being  aware  that  I  have  no  legal 
defence  to  interpose. 

"GEORGE  ADAMS. 

"Hon.  Hiram  Barney, 

"Collector,  etc.,  New  York." 

That  proposition  is  usually  (as  in  this  particular  instance)  attached 
to  the  invoice  and  papers  in  the  case.  The  sum  in  such  cases  which 
the  parties  propose  to  give  is  almost  invariably  the  appraised  value 
of  the  merchandise,  and  it  is  always  that  sum,  or  a  sum  such  as  the 
appraisers  say  in  writing  that  the  goods  would,  in  their  opinion,  sell 
for  at  auction  for  cash.  This  mode  of  sale  is  the  mode  invariably 
adopted,  where  the  goods  are  to  be  sold  after  a  forfeiture,  by  the 
marshal — that  is  to  say,  a  sale  at  auction  for  cash.  In  some  cases 
there  have  been  settlements  for  sums  less  than  the  appraised  value 
of  the  goods,  but  in  no  case  within  my  knowledge  has  there  been  a 


TESTIMONY. 


131 


settlement  in  winch  the  appraisers  have  not  first  stated  that  the  sum 
proposed  to  be  paid  was  equal  to  the  sum  which,  in  their  opinion, 
the  goods  would  sell  for  if  advertised  and  sold  at  auction  for  «ash. 
When  the  money  is  thus  paid  on  settlement  it  is  always  immediately 
delivered  to  the  auditor  at  the  custom-house,  and  1  receive  his  receipt 
for  the  money  before  I  sign  an  order  for  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to 
the  claimant;  and  this  money  is  then  divided  by  the  auditor  according 
to  law  and  the  treasury  regulations.  This  mode  of  disposing  of  cases 
is.  in  my  opinion,  clearly  sanctioned  by  express  statute:  and  it  has 
been  the  customary  mode  of  procedure,  according  to  the  statements 
of  old  custom-house  officials,  for  thirty  or  forty  years,  and  they  do 
not  know  how  much  longer.  Of  the  legality  of  this  mode  of  disposing 
of  cases  I  have  no  doubt.  As  to  its  expediency  in  a  pecuniary  view, 
I  know  a  much  larger  sum  is  realized  to  the  government  from  this 
mode  than  would  be  realized  by  prosecuting  the  cases  to  forfeiture 
in  the  courts.  It  is  within  my  own  knowledge,  though  I  cannot 
specify  precisely  and  in  detail  the  cases,  that  the  custom-house 
officers  have  declined  to  accept  of  sums  offered  because  they  thought 
the  goods  would  sell  for  more;  and  the  cases  have  thereupon  been 
sent  to  prosecution,  and  the  government  in  the  end  has  not  realized 
as  much  as  it  would  have  received  by  a  settlement  of  the  cases  in  the 
manner  proposed. 

Question.  Mr.  Stanton,  is  there  a  statute  provision  authorizing  the 
adjustment  of  these  cases  before  they  arrive  at  a  judicial  decision  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  The  fifth  section  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1841, 
clearly  recognizes  that  compromises  maybe  made  by  collectors  in  cases 
of  seizure.  The  act  recognizes  it  as  a  system  then  in  existence,  and 
which  was  to  continue  to  exist. 


New  York.  January  10.  1863. 

John  McKexzie  sworn : 

Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  I  am  a  laborer  in  the  sample  office. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  a  box  of  goods  which  was 
taken  from  the  fourth  story  of  the  building  where  the  sample  office 
is  situated  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir:  there  was  a  package  at  our  office  which  came  by 
the  steamer  "  Hansa"  on  the  4th  of  February  last,  and  was  delivered 
to  Mr.  Willey  on  the  10th.  Mr.  Stevens  came  into  the  office  and 
said  that  parcel  belonged  to  him.  and  I  was  requested  to  carry  it  into 
his  office,  which  I  did.  At  night,  before  my  going  away,  Mr.  Gray, 
the  storekeeper,  asked  me,  did  that  package  ever  go  out  of  your  office? 
I  said,  yes,  sir;  and  I  will  show  you  an  order  and  a  receipt  signed  for 
it.  No  matter,  he  said,  I  will  take  your  word  for  it.  The  package 
contained  some  pamphlets  for  distribution. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a  parcel  being  brought  down  from 
the  fourth  story  into  Mr.  Stevens's  office  and  opened? 


132 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  I  heard  of  that,  but  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  That  was 
not  this  box. 

m 

Statement  of  Hiram  Barney,  Esq. 
Question.  Please  state  your  official  position. 

Answer.  I  am  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  and  have  been 
since  April  S,  1861. 

Question.  I  hand  you  a  resolution  passed  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, which  you  will  please  read,  and  then  please  state  fully  in 
relation  to  the  several  branches  thereof. 

The  resolution  above  referred  to  was  as  follows: 

' 1  Besolved,  That  the  committee  on  government  contracts  be  directed 
to  inquire  into  the  amount  of  moneys  received  by  the  federal  officers 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  by  virtue  of  their  offices;  also  as  to  the 
ownership  and  rents  of  the  bonded  warehouses;  also  the  terms,  con- 
siderations, and  profits  of  the  labor  contract  for  the  storing,  hauling, 
and  delivering,  &c,  of  foreign  goods  in  the  city  of  New  York;  when 
made,  by  whom,  and  who  are  now  interested  in  the  same." 

Answer.  I  will  answer  in  reference  to  each  subject  embraced  in 
the  resolution  separately,  and  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  speci- 
fied in  the  resolution. 

First.  In  reference  to  the  amount  of  moneys  received  by  me  by 
virtue  of  my  office,  I  refer  to  the  statement  annexed  to  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Ogden,  the  auditor.  All  the  moneys  received  by  me.  by  virtue 
of  my  office,  are  there  stated:  and  I  have  not  derived  any  profit, 
benefit  or  emolument  of  any  kind,  or  from  any  source,  in  consequence 
of  holding  my  office,  except  as  stated  therein,  and  by  Mr.  Robinson, 
cashier.  I  desire  to  say  in  reference  to  the  commissions  upon  moneys 
received  for  State  officers,  that  upon  my  appointment  to  office  I  was 
informed  by  my  predecessor,  and  I  ascertained  on  other  examination, 
that  these  commissions  had  been  allowed  to  and  received  by  the  collector 
for  over  twenty  years  past,  and  without  interruption,  under  an  arrange- 
ment with  the  State  officers,  for  whose  benefit  and  account  they  are 
collected.  They  are  collected  by  me  for  the  convenience,  and  at  the 
special  request,  of  the  State  officers,  and  could  not  well  be  collected 
by  any  one  else.  I  will  also  add  that  since  my  incumbency  of  the 
office  of  collector,  owing  to  the  war  and  the  unprecedented  state  of 
affairs  occasioned  by  it,  1  have  been  charged  with  very  many  new 
duties,  some  of  them  entirely  foreign  to  the  ordinary  functions  and 
powers  of  collectors  of  the  revenue,  and  involving  great  responsibili- 
ties, for  which  no  indemnity  or  protection  is  allowed  or  provided  by 
existing  laws.  I  have  also,  while  acting  within  the  line  of  my  official 
duties,  been  very  often  compelled  by  the  new  and  peculiar  exigencies 
incident  to  the  war,  to  act  with  great  promptness,  and  upon  sus- 
picion, to  seize  and  detain  vessels  and  property,  and  otherwise  to  ex- 
ercise acts  of  authority  under  the  direction  of  the  government  or  in 
its  behalf,  in  which  I  have  occasionally  assumed  great  and  unprece- 
dented responsibilities  involving  very  heavy  pecuniary  risks;  and  I 
see  no  reason  why  I  should  not  be  indemnified.    There  is  a  manifest 


TESTIMONY. 


133 


propriety  that  I  should  be  included  with  other  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment in  the  bill  of  indemnity  now  pending  before  Congress. 

Second.  As  to  the  bonded  warehouses,  their  ownership,  and  rents, 
I  answer  as  follows:  The  bonded  warehouses  are  owned  by  individuals, 
who  take  goods  on  storage,  giving  bonds  for  the  safety,  custody,  and 
delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  owners.  The  whole  subject  is  governed 
by  treasury  regulations,  which  have  been'  in  force'  for  a  number  of 
years.  The  rates  of  storage  are  uniform  and  settled.  The  owner  of 
any  store  in  the  city  may  apply  to  the  collector  to  have  his  store 
made  a  bonded  warehouse.  Upon  filing  the  bond  required  by  the 
treasury  regulations,  and  complying  with  the  conditions  of  those 
regulations  as  to  the  protection  and  fastenings  of  his  premises,  his 
store  is  made  a  bonded  warehouse  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  par- 
ties who  thus  make  their  stores  bonded  warehouses  for  the  storage  of 
imported  goods,  also  pay  the  salary  of  the  government  storekeeper, 
and  of  any  other  officer  who  may  be  needed  to  assist  that  storekeeper. 
Practically,  therefore,  the  government  pays  nothing.  The  regula- 
tions imposed  by  the  government  are  to  secure  the  safety  of  the 
goods  while  they  are  warehoused,  and  before  they  are  finally  entered 
by  the  importer  for  consumption,  or  withdrawn  for  exportation. 
The  expense  of  storage  is  a  matter  between  the  proprietor  of  a 
bonded  warehouse  and  the  owners  of  the  goods;  and,  in  case  of  dis- 
pute as  to  rates,  the  rates  adopted  by  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
apply.  The  general-order  stores  are  designated  by  the  collector  out 
of  the  bonded  warehouses.  The  principle  which  governs  me  in 
selecting  the  general-order  stores  is  this:  that  the  location  shall  be 
convenient  to  the  place  where  the  goods  which  go  to  the  general- 
order  stores  are  landed;  that  the  accommodations  in  the  building 
shall  be  sufficient  for  the  district  to  be  served;  and  that  the  parties 
who  are  proprietors  of  the  stores  shall  be  persons  on  whose  responsi- 
bility and  integrity  I  can  rely. 

Third.  The  only  labor  contract  in  reference  to  foreign  goods  was 
that  for  the  handling  of  goods  in  the  appraisers'  stores,  made  in 
August,  1859,  by  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Schell,  under  the  direction  of 
the  Treasury  Department,  with  William  N.  Mclniyre,  John  C  Mather, 
Francis  M.  Bixby,  and  James  B.  Craig.  It  was  for  a  term  of  three 
years  from  September  5,  1859,  and  expired  September  5,  1862.  1 
know  nothing  about  the  ownership  of  that  contract,  or  the  profits  of 
it,  or  who  were  interested  in  it.  beyond  what  appears  in  the  original 
contract  and  in  the  power  of  attorney  made  by  the  contractors  to 
Messrs.  Stevens  &  Wyman,  copies  of  which  are  in  the  possession  of 
the  committee.  I  found  the  contract  in  operation  when  I  was  ap- 
pointed collector,  and  so  long  as  the  work  which  it  called  for  was 
properly  done  I  could  not  interfere  with  the  contractors,  nor  limit 
nor  disregard  the  rights  secured  to  them  by  the  contract.  I  held 
the  contractors  to  a  strict  performance  of  the  work,  and  recognized 
no  one  but  them.  I  had  no  knowledge  of  any  change  of  ownership 
or  interests  under  it.  I  was  not  approached  on  the  subject,  and 
knew  nothing  and  heard  nothing  about  it. 

Question.  Now,  Mr.  Barney,  do  I  understand  you  to  say  you  had 


134 


TESTIMONY. 


no  knowledge  previous  to  the  transfer  of  the  labor  contract  to  Stevens 
&  WynjaD  that  such  a  transfer  was  contemplated? 

Answer.  I  wish  to  be  so  understood.    I  had  no  such  knowledge. 

Question.  Did  you  intimate  to  any  one  that  unless  the  contract  was 
transferred  the  general-order  business  would  be  taken  away  from 
Mclntyre,  Bixby  <fc  Co.  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not.  I  never  made  any  such  statement  to  Mclntyre, 
Bixby  <fc  Co.,  or  to  any  one  of  that  firm,  or  to  anybody  else,  and  I 
never  authorized  any  such  statement  to  be  made.  I  never  thought 
of  such  a  thing.  The  labor  contract  was  not  connected  in  any  way 
with  the  general  orders,  nor  with  any  action  taken  by  me  in  reference 
to  the  general  orders.  I  never  did  any  act  or  thing  in  reference  to 
any  transfer  of  interest  under  the  labor  contract,  and  I  never  was 
interested,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  or  under  it.  I  did  not  recognize 
the  contract,  except  so  far  as  the  government  had  already  recognized 
it;  and,  upon  its  expiration,  I  made  arrangements,  with  the  sanction 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  have  the  work  done  by  laborers 
employed  by  the  day  and  under  the  immediate  supervision  of  one  of 
my  deputies,  and  of  clerks  in  the  appraisers'  stores. 

Question.  Do  you  know  one  Munson  Gray  ? 

Answer.  I  do.  He  was  assistant  storekeeper  in  the  public  store. 
He  was  removed  by  me  on  account  of  infirmities,  incident,  probably, 
to  his  advanced  age,  which,  in  my  judgment,  unfitted  him  for  the 
duties  of  his  office,  and  I  removed  him  for  no  other  reason. 

Question.  Had  he  any  connexion  with  Stevens  &  Wyman,  and  did 
Stevens  cause  his  removal? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  that  Stevens  ever  suggested  his  re- 
\  moval.  He  may  have  done  so;  but  my  action  was  the  result  of  the 
considerations  I  have  named,  and  of  them  alone. 

Question.  Did  Stevens  or  anybody,  within  your  knowledge,  inter- 
fere with  the  goods  in  the  appraisers'  store  ? 

Answer.  Only  in  a  single  case,  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  State  your  knowledge  of  that  case. 

Answer.  The  clerk  having  charge  of  the  sample  goods  reported  to 
me  that  Mr.  Stevens  had  requested  him  to  facilitate  an  irregular 
delivery  of  a  package  of  goods,  and  that  he  had  an  altercation  with 
him  on  the  subject.  I  had  given  the.  clerk  directions  never  to  per- 
mit interference  by  any  person  with  the  strict  and  conscientious  per- 
formance of  his  duties,  and  upon  his  statement  I  approved  of  his 
conduct  on  that  occasion.    I  recollect  no  other  case. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  explanation  from  Mr.  Stevens 
in  respect  to  this  package  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Mr.  Stevens,  in  making  complaint,  as  he  did, 
against  the  clerk  for  his  manner  towards  him,  explained  to  me  his 
views  of  the  case,  and  said  he  considered  he  had  a  right  to  do  what 
he  bad  done,  and  that  the  clerk  was  offensive  in  his  manners.  The 
name  of  the  clerk  was  George  Bisbee. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  fitting  up  of  any  office 
in  the  public  stores  on  Broadway  for  any  person  ? 

Answer.  A  room  was  assigned  to  the  contractors  convenient  for 


TESTIMONY. 


135 


the  supervision  of  the  laborers,  and  for  hearing  any  complaints  that 
might  be  made  of  the  manner  in  which  the  work  was  done.  It  was 
fitted  up,  not  at  the  expense  of  the  government,  but  at  the  expense 
of  the  contractors. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  authorize  any  expenditure  of  government 
funds  upon  it? 

Answer.  I  never  authorized  nor  allowed  any  such  expense,  and  no 
such  expenditure  was  ever  made  by  me  or  by  the  government,  to  my 
knowledge.  After  the  stores  on  Broadway  were  leased  by  the  gov- 
ernment, some  repairs  were  made,  and  several  offices  were  partitioned 
off  for  the  various  parts  of  the  business.  One  of  these  offices,  as  I 
understand,  was  assigned  to  the  contractors,  as  they  had  previously 
had  a  room  in  the  Broad  street  stores;  but  they  fitted  it  up  and  fur- 
nished it  at  their  own  expense,  and  not  at  the  expense  of  the  gov- 
ernment. Mr.  Bixby,  one  of  the  original  contractors,  and  who  super- 
intended the  labor,  informs  me  that  he  paid  the  expense  himself  for 
the  contractors. 

Question.  You  have  given  a  statement  of  your  own  receipts  as 
collector.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  receipts  and  emoluments 
of  the  collectors  before  you — your  predecessors  ? 

Answer.  I  have  a  general  knowledge  derived  from  the  statements 
of  the  auditor,  and  from  an  examination  of  the  books  in  his  office. 
These  statements  of  the  auditor  show  all  the  receipts  of  the  col- 
lectors, but  they  do  not  show  the  amounts  paid  by  them  from  those 
receipts  for  information  upon  which  seizures  are  made  or  suits  for  the 
recovery  of  the  value  of  goods  fraudulently  entered  are  prosecuted. 
Informers,  whether  public  or  private,  are  paid  out  of  the  moiety 
of  the  revenue  officers  from  the  proceeds  of  seized  goods  or  re- 
coveries. The  payments  to  private  informers  do  not  appear  in  the 
auditor's  accounts.  He  has  no  official  cognizance  of  such  payments. 
They  are  made  in  pursuance  of  arrangements  between  such  informers 
and  the  revenue  officers.  The  amounts  thus  paid  are  considerable. 
The  amount  paid  during  my  term  of  office,  or  twenty- one  months.  I 
cannot  state  now  with  accuracy,  but  believe  it  to  be  about  $8,000. 
In  forming  an  estimate  of  the  income  of  collectors,  regard  should  be 
had  to  these  payments,  which  are  a  necessary  incident  to  the  detec- 
tion of  frauds  and  the  enforcement  of  the  revenue  laws.  The 
amount  received  by  Mr.  Schell,  over  and  above  his  salary,  during  his 
term  of  office  and  since  I  think,  is  $53,000,  or  thereabouts.  The 
receipts  of  former  collectors  on  account  of  seizures  were,  I  think, 
much  less  than  those  of  Mr.  Schell. 

Question.  Are  there  any  seizures  or  confiscations  still  pending  from 
which  Mr.  Schell  will  receive  any  emoluments  hereafter  ? 

Answer.  A  few,  perhaps. 

Question.  Can  you  estimate  about  how  much  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot.  The  cases  are  in  litigation,  and  the  amount  to 
be  realized  cannot  be  properly  estimated  at  any  considerable  sum. 

Question.  How  much  did  Mr.  Redfield  receive  ? 

Answer.  I  think  less  than  $40,000,  or  $10,000  a  year;  and  Mr. 
Maxwell  still  less. 


136  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Have  the  duties  of  the  collector  of  this  port,  in  reference 
to  seizures,  been  increased,  or  otherwise  varied  from  what  they  were 
under  former  collectors? 

Answer.  The  duties  of  the  collector,  in  reference  to  that  branch  of 
the  business,  are  the  same  that  they  have  been;  and,  as  to  the  amount 
of  it,  it  varies  from  time  to  time  according  to  the  number  of  seizures 
made. 

Question.  Is  the  number  of  seizures  greater  or  less  now  than  in 
corresponding  periods  in  former  years? 

Answer.  I  am  unable  to  state  that  without  reference  to  the  books; 
but  I  should  think  the  number  much  greater. 

Question.  Is  there  anything  further  in  refereuce  to  seizures,  which 
you  can  communicate  that  will  throw  light  on  that  subject  ? 

Answer.  I  will  remark  generally  that  the  number  of  seizures  would, 
for  a  time,  be  increased  by  extraordinary  vigilance  and  activity  on 
the  part  of  the  revenue  officers.  After  such  vigilance  and  activity 
become  notorious,  that  would  tend  to  diminish  the  number  of  seizures. 
When  officers  are  notoriously  lax  or  inefficient,  the  smugglers  and 
defrauders  are  bold  and  successful;  when  officers  are  notoriously  active, 
intelligent,  and  vigilant,  the  violaters  of  the  revenue  laws  are  timid 
and  cautious.  When  attempts  to  evade  or  violate  the  revenue  laws 
do  not  promise  success,  those  who  engage  in  such  fraudulent  practices 
suspend  or  abandon  such  pursuits  for  a  time,  at  least.  Questions 
relating  to  seizures  arise  daily,  and  frequently  many  times  a  day, 
which,  with  the  other  duties  of  the  office  devolving  upon  the  collector, 
render  it  impossible  that  he  should  fully  possess  himself,  by  his  own 
examination,  of  all  the  facts  in  every  case.  I  have,  therefore,  devolved 
the  examination  of  such  cases,  and  other  duties  in  reference  to  that 
branch,  upon  a  deputy  collector,  Mr.  Stanton,  who  is  a  lawyer  by  pro- 
fession; and  he,  together  with  the  naval  officer,  surveyor,  and  their 
deputies,  attend  mainly  to  that  branch  of  the  business.  The  direct 
responsibility,  however,  for  all  seizures,  necessarily  devolves  upon 
the  collector  alone. 

Question.  Was  there  a  similar  officer  charged  with  the  like  duty 
under  your  predecessors  ? 

Answer.  So  far  as  I  know,  my  predecessors  devolved  the  duty  ol 
examining  cases  of  seizure  upon  officers  in  the  collector's  department, 
together  with  officers  in  the  surveyor's  department. 


Washington,  January  26,  1663. 

Wm.  T.  Duvall  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
Answer.  In  Washington. 
Question.  What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  I  am  not  of  the  firm,  but  I  am  with  the  firm,  of  Duvall 
&  Brothers,  tailors  and  clothing  merchants,  on  Pennsylvania  avenue. 
Question.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  business  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


137 


Answer.  I  was  raised  in  it. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  yourself  a  competent  judge  of  clothing  ? 

Answer.  I  do,  of  certain  qualities  coming  within  the  range  of 
clothing  Ave  have  been  in  the  habit  of  manufacturing  and  dealing  in. 
Beyond  that  I  do  not  consider  myself  a  judge. 

(A  coat  marked  "  U.  S.  inspection,  New  York,  A.  Clark,  N.  Y./' 
being  the  same  coat  in  reference  to  which  A.  Clark  testified  in  New 
York,  was  here  handed  to  witness.) 

Question.  Please  look  at  the  coat  I  hand  you,  and  inform  me  of 
what  material  it  is  made  ? 

Answer.  It  is  a  kind  of  Petersham,  or  something  which  represents 
Petersham,  in  its  outside  appearance. 

Question.  Upon  examination,  does  it  appear  to  be  cloth  or  felting? 

Answer.  It  does  not  appear  to  be  woven  cloth,  but  I  do  not  know 
exactly  what  to  call  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not,  such  kind  of  stuff  is  usu- 
ally called  shoddy  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  What  is  your  judgment  of  the  material  in  that  coat? 
Answer.  I  cannot  think  that  it  would  do  much  service. 
Question.  For  what  reason? 

Answer.  From  the  experiments  made  upon  it  here  to  test  its 
strength,  and  because  it  is  not  a  woven  cloth. 

Question.  What  shou|d  you  judge  would  be  the  cost  of  making  such 
a  coat  as  that,  and  making  it  as  this  is  made  ? 

Answer.  That  would  be  a  mere  matter  of  judgment,  because  I  do 
not  know  what  persons  give  for  making  that  kind  of  goods. 

Question.  Should  you  think  $1  50  would  pay  for  the  making  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  suppose  they  pay  less  than  $1  50.  There 
is  no  kind  of  coat  we  could  make  up  in  our  store  that  would  be  worth 
less  than  six  dollars,  unless  it  might  be  the  thinnest  kind  of  summer 
stuff;  and  I  do  not  know  what  such  a  coat  as  this  would  be  considered 
worth. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  the  coat,  as  made,  of  any  practical 
value  ? 

Answer.  I  should  not  think  it  Would  do  much  service. 
Question.  Is  it  of  small  size  ? 

Answer.  It  is  what  we  would  call  a  medium-sized  coat. 

Question.  Would  it  be  of  any  value  for  shedding  rain  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  what  to  say  about  that.  If  the  rain  was 
not  exceedingly  heavy,  I  suppose  it  would  cast  off  the  water  ;  but  if 
the  rain  was  heavy  the  coat  would  soon  become  very  uncomfortable 
by  being  saturated  with  water,  as  it  is  of  rather  a  spongy  material.  I 
should  judge  that  a  soldier,  much  exposed,  ought  to  have  a  heavier 
coat.    This  is  rather  light  for  soldiers'  use. 


138 


TESTIMONY. 


New  York,  January  24,  1863. 

Colonel  D.  H.  Vinton  recalled: 

Questions  by  Hon.  R.  E.  Penton. 

Question  1.  What  is  your  official  position  and  place  of  business? 

Answer.  My  official  position  is  deputy  quartermaster  general  of 
the  army  of  the  United  States,  in  charge  of  the  clothing  and  equipage 
depot  at  Nos.  502  and  504  Broadway,  New  York  city. 

Question  2.  Will  you  state  in  regard  to  a  contract  for  clothing 
(great  coats)  with  Amos  Clark,  of  this  city,  about  the  1st  of  October, 
1861,  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  made,  the  price  paid,  the 
kind  and  quality  of  cloth,  and  all  you  know  touching  the  transaction? 

Answer.  No  contract  was  made  with  Amos  Clark  for  great  coats  at 
the  time  referred  to;  but  I  ordered  of  him,  as  then  was  my  custom, 
(for  reasons  heretofore  given  to  the  committee,)  six  thousand  great 
coats,  of  black  Petersham  felt  cloth,  at  $6  each,  from  a  sample  of 
material  presented  to  me,  which  was  considered  cheap  at  that  price, 
and,  under  the  circumstances,  would  be  serviceable  and  comfortable 
garments  for  the  want  of  better.  Of  these  "  circumstances'7  I  beg 
leave  to  refer  you  to  a  passage  in  the  annual  report  of  the  quarter- 
master general  of  the  army  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  November 
18,  1862,  which  I  quote,  as  follows,  as  the  reasons  which  induced  a 
resort  to  that  kind  of  clothing,  instead  of  su^i  as  was  established  by 
army  regulations: 

"When  the  rebellion  first  compelled  the  government  to  call  out  a 
large  force  the  stock  of  clothing  on  hand  in  the  arsenals,  being  in- 
tended only  for  the  supply  of  the  regular  army,  about  13,000  strong, 
was  inconsiderable.  The  manufacture  of  cloth  and  materials  of  army 
clothing  occupied  but  few  of  the  factories  of  the  country,  and  the 
stock  of  clothing  and  material  was  at  once  exhausted.  There  was 
great  difficulty  in  supplying  the  large  force  suddenly  raised.  The 
organization  of  this  department  did  not  furnish  enough  officers  of 
experience  to  provide  and  distribute  to  all  parts  of  the  country  the 
necessary  supplies.  The  mills,  which  were  at  once  set  to  work  upon 
army  goods,  could  not  manufacture  fast  enough  to  clothe  the  troops. 
There  was  a  great  scarcity  of  suitable  blankets  and  army  cloths  and 
under  garments. 

"The  troops  being  received  generally  through  the  State  authori- 
ties, these  authorities  were  engaged  to  assist  the  department  in  pro- 
viding the  necessary  supplies.  Large  importations  were  made  by 
merchants,  and  the  goods  thus  imported  were  bought  by  the  State 
authorities  and  by  the  quartermaster's  department,  and  manufactured 
by  contract,  or  in  the  establishments,  into  clothing.  As  the  cold 
weather  approached,  the  troops  in  some  cases  for  a  time  suffered  for 
want  of  overcoats  and  blankets.  Under  these  circumstances,  and  to 
supply  the  immediate  and  absolute  necessities  of  the  suffering  troops, 
large  quantities  of  such  materials  as  could  be  found  in  the  market  in 
the  hands  of  dealers  and  manufacturers — materials  manufactured  for 
the  ordinary  clothing  of  the  people — were  purchased  and  made  up. 


TESTIMONY. 


139 


In  some  cases  these  articles  were  redyed,  of  the  uniform  colors — light 
and  dark  indigo  blue;  but  the  greater  part  of  the  gray,  brown,  and 
black  cloths  purchased  were  made  up  in  those  colors.  For  a  time 
they  were  gladly  received,  and  they  prevented  much  suffering.  But 
these  materials  were  inferior  to  the  army  standard  goods.  When  the 
troops  came  in  contact  with  the  enemy  on  thickly-wooded  fields 
mistakes  occurred.  The  rebel  forces  were  generally  clothed  in  gray; 
and  our  own  troops  in  some  cases  fired  into  each  other.  This  caused 
orders  to  be  issued,  both  by  the  eastern  and  western  commanders, 
prohibiting  the  issue  or  use  of  clothing  of  any  but  the  established 
uniform  colors — light  and  dark  blues. 

"As  fast  as  uniform  clothing  could  be  obtained  the  irregular  cloth- 
ing was  withdrawn  from  service.  A  great  prejudice  now  exists 
against  it,  and  the  department  has  been  the  subject  of  unjust  criti- 
cism for  its  action  in  the  matter.  The  material  was  undoubtedly 
inferior  to  the  excellent  army  cloths,  and  in  making  the  immense 
purchases  required  the  officers  of  the  department  were  in  some  cases 
imposed  upon  by  unscrupulous  dealers  and  unfaithful  inspectors. 
But  the  troops  were  clothed  and  rescued  from  severe  suffering; 
and  those  who  saw  sentinels  walking  post  about  the  capital  of  the 
United  States  in  freezing  weather  in  their  drawers,  without  trousers 
or  overcoats,  will  not  blame  the  department  for  its  efforts  to  clothe 
them  even  in  materials  not  quite  so  durable  as  army  blue  kersey. 

"There  is  still  on  hand  a  considerable  stock  of  this  clothing,  which 
it  has  been  thought  better  to  keep  in  store  than  to  sacrifice  at  auc- 
tion. It  is  used  for  gratuitous  issue  to  soldiers  in  hospital  who  have 
lost  their  clothing  in  consequence  of  wounds  or  disease.  Some  of  it 
has  been  issued  to  prisoners  of  war  in  distress,  both  rebel  prisoners 
and  our  own  men  released  on  parole,  and  some  of  it  to  negroes  em- 
ployed in  the  army.  In  time  it  can  all  be  disposed  of  in  these  modes, 
and  in  the  chances  of  war  it  is  not  impossible  that  this  reserve  of 
irregular  clothing  may  yet  prove  of  value  to  some  portion  of  the 
armies  in  the  field." 

Question  3.  Do  you  know — in  regard  to  the  coat  brought  before 
this  committee-— of  its  worth  or  worthlessness,  and  what  amount  was 
received  of  that  quality  ? 

Answer.  I  have  already  stated  that  6,000  of  the  kind  of  great 
coat  referred  to  were  purchased,  and  the  price  of  the  same.  As  to 
the  value  of  the  article,  I  can  only  say  that  it  was  worth  the  price 
paid  for  it;  but  if  its  worthlessness  is  to  be  established  from  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  coat  exhibited  to  me  by  your  honorable  committee, 
I  can  but  consider  it  as  good  for  nothing.  It  had  been  torn  and  other- 
wise mutilated  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  it  undistinguishable  as 
one  I  had  purchased,  apparently  in  a  wanton  manner,  to  give  effect 
to  certain  misrepresentations  that  had  been  made  in  a  public  print 
regarding  it. 

Question  4.  Were  contracts  made  with  other  parties  for  the  same 
or  similar  kind  of  goods;  with  whom,  and  at  what  price? 

Answer.  No  contracts  were  made  with  other  parties  for  the  same 
or  similar  kind  of  goods;  but  orders  were  given,  or  purchases  in  open 


140 


TESTIMONY. 


market  were  made,  for  similar  articles.  For  instance,  on  the  7th  of 
October,  14,700  were  ordered  of  A.  T.  Stewart  &  Co.,  and  on  the  23d 
of  October  1,500  more,  of  which  13,240  were  received,  at  $7  each. 
I  beg  leave  to  add  that  Mr.  Clark  is  in  nowise  responsible  for  com- 
plaints made  against  the  coats  in  question.  He  performed  his  duties 
in  his  bargain  with  me,  and  has  always  proved  himself  an  honorable 
and  upright  merchant  in  his  transactions  with  this  office.  In  my 
letter  of  the  31st  ultimo  to  Hon.  E.  B.  Washburne,  chairman  of  your 
committee,  I  stated  that  the  great  coats  in  question  had  been  issued 
to  invalid  soldiers  gratuitotisly  through  the  medical  department. 
This,  from  further  observation  and  inquiry,  I  believe  to  be  correct. 

D.  H.  VINTON, 
Lieut.  Col.  and  Dep.  Quartermaster  General. 


New  York,  Feb.  14,  1863. 

George  W.  Yerby,  sworn. 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
Answer.  In  New  York. 
Question.  What  is  your  business? 
Answer.  I  am  a  broker  and  agent. 
Question.  What  kind  of  a  broker  ? 

Answer.  In  almost  all  kinds  of  merchandise,  government  supplies, 
&c. 

Question.  What  kind  of  an  agent? 

Answer.  For  prosecuting  claims  before  the  departments  at  Wash- 
ington and  here. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  contracts  with  the  government  since 
the  breaking  out  of  the  rebellion  ? 

Answer.  I  have  had  no  direct  contracts. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  indirect  contracts  ? 

Answer.  I  have  sold  goods  to  parties  who  supplied  the  government. 

Question.  What  k:nd  of  goods,  and  to  what  parties? 

Answer.  I  have  sold  army  clothing  to  Col.  Vinton,  assistant 
quartermaster  general  here. 

Question.  To  what  extent? 

Answer.  Probably  fifteen  to  twenty  thousand  dollars,  worth  of 
clothing  and  blankets. 

Question.  For  what  party  did  you  sell  that  lot  of  clothing  ? 

Answer.  The  blankets  were  sold  for  a  man  by  the  name  of  George 
B.  Callendine. 

Question.  And  the  clothing,  for  what  party? 

Answer.  The  clothing  was  sold  for  a  man  by  the  name  of  Neu- 
berger. 

Question.  To  what  amount? 

Answer.  Probably  fifteen  or  twenty  thousand  dollars  worth'  ;  I  do 
not  recollect  now  the  exact  amount.  There  were  other  things  I  sold, 
such  as  hosiery  and  things  of  that  sort,  of  which  I  do  not  recollect 
the  amount  or  the  date  of  sale. 


TESTIMONY. 


141 


Question.  Were  they  large  in  amount? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  all  I  sold  to  Col.  Vinton  would  not  probably  ex- 
ceed $25,000. 

Question.  What  was  the  reason  that  those  parties  did  not  deal  di- 
rectly with  Col.  Vinton  ? 

Answer.  The  property  of  one  of  the  parties  was  in  Philadelphia. 
Question.  What  party  was  that? 
Answer.  Mr.  Neuberger. 

Question.  Is  that  any  reason  whv  he  could  not  deal  directly  with 
Col.  Vinton  ? 

Answer.  I  presume  the  reason  he  employed  me  to  sell  the  property 
was  because  I  was  iu  the  habit  of  going  there,  and  knew  him.  I 
charged  him  a  small  commission  only  for  doing  the  business. 

Question.  What  commission  did  you  get  ? 

Answer.  Two  and  a  half  per  cent.,  the  regular  brokerage  on  mer- 
chandise1 

Question.  What  was  the  advantage  to  the  parties  for  whom  you 
acted  in  employing  you,  and  paying  you  two  and  a  half  per  cent.,  in- 
stead of  doing  the  business  themselves  directly  with  Col.  Vinton? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell.  It  is  the  custom  here  to  employ  brokers  in 
the  sale  of  almost  everything. 

Question.  Have  you  any  particular  facilities  for  effecting  sales  ? 

Answer.  None  whatever. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  other  connexion  with  government 
contracts  beyond  what  you  have  already  stated. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  some  long  time  ago  I  had  some  gun  contracts, 
and  I  have  had  some  recently. 

Question.  State  what  those  gun  contracts  were  you  had  a  long 
time  ago. 

Answer.  Those  contracts  were  carried  out  a  year  ago  last  fall. 
Question.    State  the  particulars  with  regard  to  those  contracts,  with 
whom  made,  &c. 

Answer.  I  was  acting  as  broker,  and  sold  a  number  of  guns  to  go 
to  St.  Louis,  as  I  understood  it.    I  delivered  them  here. 

Question.  What  was  the  number  of  guns  you  sold  then  ;  to  whom 
did  you  sell  them  ;  and  at  what  price  ? 

Answer.  It  is  impossible  to  remember  the  price,  as  the  transaction 
was  a  long  time  ago. 

Question.  What  was  the  number  ? 

Answer.  There  were  probably  7,000  or  8,000. 

Question.  With  whom  did  you  make  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  I  made  the  contract  with  Mr.  John  Hoey. 

Question.  Who  is  he  ? 

Answer.  Superintendent  of  Adams  &  Co.'s  express. 
Question.  You  sold  them  to  him? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is,  I  procured  the  guns  ;  took  a  sample  to 
him  ;  some  of  the  guns  were  satisfactory,  and  some  were  rejected.  I 
understood  from  him  that  those  guns  were  sent  to  General  Anderson. 

Question.  Have  you  sold  any  guns  to  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  this  an  indirect  sale  to  the  government? 


142 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  I  presume  the  guns  went  to  the  government. 
Question.  Did  you  have  anything  yourself  to  do  with  the  govern- 
ment? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Hoey  hold  himself  out  as  an  agent  of  the  govern- 
ment ? 

Answer.  He  held  himself  out  as  purchasing  for  himself  ;  what  dis- 
position he  made  of  them  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  receive  pay  for  the  guns  ? 

Answer.  From  Mr.  Hoey. 

Question.  What  kind  of  guns  were  they  ? 

Answer.  There  were  different  kinds.  Some  of  them  were  Prussian 
rifles — not  very  good  guns.  They  were  sold  for  about  seven  dollars, 
I  think.  Then  there  were  some  which  were  a  kind  of  second-hand 
Springfield  gun,  or  rather  second  quality.  They  probably  had  been 
used  somewhat,  and  I  think  they  sold  for  ten  or  ten  and  a  half  dol- 
lars. There  was  one  lot  of  Springfield  rifles  which  were  got  of  Colt's 
Manufacturing  Company  ;  they  were  imperfect  when-  Colt  bought 
them,  and  he  took  them  to  his  factory  and  put  them  in  nice  order. 
Those  I  sold. 

Question.  Did  you  sell  all  these  guns  to  Hoey  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  was  this  last  lot  of  repaired  Springfield  guns  sold 
for? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  they  were  sold  for  about  $10  50  each. 
Had  I  held  them  a  month  or  so  longer  they  would  have  sold  for  fifteen 
or  sixteen  dollars. 

Question.  How  came  Hoey,  as  superintendent  of  Adams  &  Co.'s 
express,  to  be  speculating  in  guns  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  for,  or  on  behalf  of  his  com- 
pany ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  not. 
Question.  Is  he  a  man  of  means  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  were  your  profits  on  all  the  arms  you  sold  to  Hoey  ? 
Answer.  About  $4,300. 

Question.  From  what  did  you  gather  the  conclusion  that  the  guns 
were  for  Gen'l  Anderson,  at  Louisville,  or  Jeffersonville  ? 

Answer.  Because  I  was  told  so  by  some  person  ;  I  think  Hoey  told 
me  so.  It  has  been  so  long  since  that  I  cannot  recollect  all  that  oc- 
cured  at  the  time.  The  whole  matter  has  been  settled  a  year  or 
fifteen  months. 

Question.  What  are  the  recent  transactions  in  guns  to  which  you 
alluded  ? 

Answer.  It  was  a  transaction  in  which  a  lot  of  8,360  Enfield  rifles 
were  sold  to  Robert  Dale  Owen.    That  was  in  September  last. 
Question.  By  whom  were  those  rifles  sold? 
Answer.  By  Joseph  Kirkpatrick. 
Question   At  what  price? 
Answer.  At  $17  85,  I  understand. 


TESTIMONY. 


143 


Question.  From  whom  did  you  understand  so  ? 
Answer  from  Kirkpatrick  himself? 
Question.  Where  was  this  contract  made? 

Answer.  In  reference  to  those  matters,  I  can  only  testify  from  what 
Kirkpatrick  and  Mr.  Martin  and  Mr.  Owen  told  me. 
Question.  What  did  they  tell  you? 

Answer.  I  will  commence  and  tell  the  transaction  from  the  begin- 
ning. In  the  beginning  I  had  placed  in  my  hands  two  samples  of 
Enfield  rifles  of  a  lot  of  8,360.  I  called  upon  Kirkpatrick  because  we 
had  had  something  to  do  in  such  matters  before.  He  stated  to  me 
that  he  had  some  person  to  whom  he  thought  he  could  sell  those  En- 
field rifles.  He  took  the  samples  from  my  office.  He  went  to  the 
Ocean  Bank  in  this  city  with  them.  The  agreement  between  Kirk- 
patrick and  myself  was,  that  whatever  profit  was  made  in  the  sale  of 
those  guns  should  be  equally  divided.  The  guns  were  given  to  me 
at  $16  50  each,  and  they  were  sold  to  Kobert  Dale  Owen  at  $17  85, 
at  the  Ocean  Bank,  through  Mr.  D.  K.  Martin,  the  president  of  the 
Ocean  Bank,  as  I  understand  it,  Mr.  Martin  furnishing  the  money 
for  the  State  of  Indiana.  This  is  what  Kirkpatrick  tells  me.  Martin 
told  me  the  same  thing. 

Question.  What  did  you  pay  for  them  ? 

Answer.  They  were  given  to  me  for  $16  50  each. 

Question.  That  is  to  say,  that  is  the  sum  at  which  you  were  au- 
thorized to  sell  them  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  The  understanding  with  Kirkpatrick  was,  that 
whatever  was  made  between  $16  50  and  what  they  sold  at  we  should 
divide. 

Question.  Did  you  divide  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  When  1  came  to  have  a  settlement  with  Kirk- 
patrick he  proposed  to  pay  me  $836,  alleging  to  me  that  the  whole 
matter  had  changed,  and  that  Mr.  Martin  and  Mr.  Owen  had  em- 
ployed him  as  a  broker  to  buy  those  guns,  and  that  all  he  could  make 
out  of  the  transaction  was  $1,672,  one  half  of  which  he  gave  me.  The 
reason  he  gave  for  that  was,  that  Owen  and  Martin  wanted  this 
mouey— that  is,  the  difference  between  what  he  received  and  the 
$1,672 — for  political  purposes  ;  and  that  balance  was  kept  by  them. 

Question.  I  understand  you  then  that  the  guns  were  in  the  first 
place  to  be  charged  at  $16  50  ? 

Answer.  That  was  the  price  they  were  put  to  me  at. 

Question.  And  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  made  a  sale  of  them  at  $17  85  each 
through  Mr.  Martin,  president  of  the  Ocean  Bank,  to  Mr.  Owen,  as 
agent  for  the  State  of  Indiana  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  after  the  trade  and  sale  was  made  you  went  to  Kirk- 
patrick, and  instead  of  paying  you  one-half  of  the  profits,  as  he  agreed 
to  do,  he  only  proposed  to  pay  you  $836  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  After  the  transaction  was  closed  he  gave  that  as  an  ex- 
cuse to  you  ? 

Answer.  He  gave  this  as  an  excuse  before  the  sale  was  closed,  that 
it  was  a  very  difficult  thing  to  make  a  sale. 

Question.  I  understand  you  that  the  sale  was  made  at  $17  85  ? 


144 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  It  was,  but  I  was  probably  getting  along  with  the  story 
rather  too  fast.  He  said  it  would  be  a  difficult  thing  to  make  a  sale, 
that  Owen  was  hard  to  please,  or  something  of  that  kind,  aud  if  it 
was  done  at  all  it  could  only  be  done  by  his  simply  acting  as  agent 
for  them  in  the  purchase,  and  that  instead  of  making  something  very 
handsome  out  of  it  we  could  only  make  20  cents  upon  each  rifle. 

Question.  I  understand  you  that  the  sale  was  actually  made  at 
$17  85  ? 

Answer.  It  was  actually  made  at  that  price,  as  I  understand  from 
Mr.  Martin,  Mr.  Owen,  and  Mr.  Kirkpatrick. 

Question.  But  when  you  came  to  demand  your  portion  of  the  profits 
upon  the  basis  of  $16  50  and  $17  85',  Kirkpatrick  gave  you  as  his 
reason  for  declining  to  pay  you  one  half  of  that  difference  that  the 
whole  thing  had  been  changed  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  could  it  have  been  made  after  the  trade  was  made? 

Answer.  As  I  proposed  to  explain  a  moment  ago,  this  thing  was 
named  to  me  previous  to  the  sate  of  the  guns.  Kirkpatrick  came  to 
me  and  said  this,  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  make  a  sale,  and  if  it 
was  made  at  all  it  could  only  be  made  by  his  buying  these  guns, 
acting  simply  as  a  broker,  and  receiving  for  his  trouble  twenty  cents 
on  each  gun.  My  reply  was,  that  it  was  nothing  like  what  we  ex- 
pected to  make,  but  sooner  than  have  the  sale  fall  through  and  make 
nothing  at  all  I  would  consent  that  they  might  be  sold  at  that  price. 

Question.  At  what  price? 

Answer.  He  did  not  name  the  price  at  all.  He  said  we  should 
make  beiween  us  twenty  cents  on  each  rifle. 

Question.  Then  instead  of  selling  at  $17  85  each  gun,  he  sold  for 
$16  70? 

Answer.  After  this  thing  had  been  going  on  several  days,  after  I 
had  given  the  samples  to  Kirkpatrick  and  he  had  .seen  Owen,  Kirk- 
patrick came  to  me  and  said  the  whole  matter  had  changed,  that  the 
sale  could  not  be  made  unless  he  acted  simply  as  broker  to  purchase 
those  guns  for  Martin  and  Owen.  Well,  it  was  natural  for  me  to  ask 
what  we  were  going  to  make  out  of  the  transaction.  He  replied,  only 
twenty  cents  upon  each  rifle,  which  would  be  ten  cents  a  rifle  for  each 
of  us.  I  said  if  that  was  the  best  that  could  be  done,  and  if  the  sale 
oould  not  be  made  except  upon  those  terms,  why  let  them  go.  Then 
he  gave  me  as  the  reason  why  that  was  all  that  could  be  made  was, 
that  there  would  be  a  handsome  profit  made  out  of  the  guns,  but  that 
whatever  was  made  over  and  above  that  Mr.  Owen  and  Mr.  Martin 
wanted  for  political  purposes. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  understand  anything  from  Mr.  Martin  or 
Mr.  Owen  in  reference  to  this  matter? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  I  called  upon  them  in  reference  to  the  subject. 

Question.  Did  you  tell  them  what  Kirkpatrick  had  said? 

Auswer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  That  the  amount  between  $16  70  and  $17  85  had  been 
taken  for  political  purposes  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  and  I  asked  them  that  question.  They  said  it 
was  not  so.    I  then  told  Kirkpatrick  what  Martin  had  said,  and  he 


TESTIMONY. 


145 


said  to  me  tliat  Martin  had  replied  to  me  just  as  any  man  should 
have  replied  under  the  circumstances. 

Question.  What  did  he  mean  by  that — that  Martin  had  lied  about 
it,  or  that  it  was  proper  for  Martin  to  lie? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  When  I  found  there  was  so  great  a  dis- 
crepancy between  the  two  statements  I  concluded  I  would  go  and  see 
those  geutlemen.  I  went  to  them  and  asked  them  the  direct  ques- 
tion, who  got  the  difference  between  $16  50  and  $17  85  on  each  of 
those  rifles.  Their  reply  was  that  Kirkpatrick  had  received  it.  I 
then  went  to  Kirkpatrick  and  asked  him  if  he  would  go  and  see 
Martin  with  me.  He  said  he  would  not.  I  then  told  him  that  I  had 
seen  Martin,  and  what  Martin  had  said. 

Question.  Kirkpatrick  had  a  direct  interest,  had  he  not,  in  repre- 
senting to  you  that  this  amount,  instead  of  going  into  his  own  pocket, 
was  taken  by  Owen  and  Martin,  in  order  to  cheat  you  out  of  your 
portion  of  the  profits? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  if  he  had  a  mind  to  lie  to  me. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge,  or  have  you  any 
reason  to  believe,  that  Owen  or  Martin  put  any  portion  of  this  amount 
into  their  own  pockets  for  any  purpose  whatever,  or  applied  the  same 
to  any  particular  purpose,  political  or  otherwise  ? 

Answer  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  so,  except  from  what  Kirk- 
patrick had  said,  and  from  the  fact  that  I  do  not  believe  that  Martin 
wTould  advance  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars without  making  something  out  of  it.  Afterwards,  Martin  told 
me  that  the  guns  were  turned  over  to  the  government. 

Question  Did  not  you  understand  that  they  were  purchased  in  the 
first  instance  for  the  government? 

Answer.  1  understood  that  they  were  purchased  for  the  State  of 
Indiana. 

Question.  You  understood  that  from  Martin  ? 

Answer.  Martin  told  me  that  the  guns  were  sold  to  or  were  turned 
over  to  the  government,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Question.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  Martin  advanced  the 
money  for  the  State  of  Indiana? 

Answer.  I  understand  that  Owen,  as  agent  of  the  State  of  Indiana, 
had  no  money  here  to  use  for  that  purpose,  and  that  Mr.  Martin  or 
his  bank  advanced  the  money. 

Question.  Who  did  you  understand  that  from? 

Answer.  From  Kirkpatrick,  Mr.  Martin,  and  also,  I  think,  from 
Mr.  Owen. 

Question.  Was  the  money  advanced  upon  the  credit  of  the  State  ? 
Answer.  So  I  understand. 

Question.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  afterwards  you  under- 
stood from  Mr.  Martin  that  the  guns  were  sold  to,  or  turned  over  to, 
the  government  of  the  United  States  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  give  any  reason  at  that  time  why  the  guns  did 
did  not  inure  to  the  State  of  Indiana  ? 
Answer.  He  said  nothing  about  it. 


Part  iii  10 


146 


I  1.STIM0NY. 


Question.  Did  Owen  say  anything  about  the  guns  being  turned 
over  to  Indiana  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not  understand  anything  of  the  kind  from  him. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  from  Owen,  in  any  conversation,  for 
whom  he  purchased  those  guns — either  for  the  State,  or  for  the  gen- 
eral government,  or  for  his  and  Martin's  own  benefit? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  understood  from  Owen  anything  directly 
about  that. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  understand  that? 

Answer.  Martin  told  mein  his  office  that  these  guns  were  purchased 
for  the  State  of  Indiana,  that  he  advanced  the  money  to  pay  for  them, 
the  agent  of  the  State  having  no  money  here. 

Question.  That  he  advanced  the  money  upon  the  credit  of  the 
State  ? 

Answer.  I  supposed  so,  of  course. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  understand  specifically  that  these 
guns  were  purchased  for  the  State  of  Indiana? 

Answer.  I  understood  it  from  Kirkpatrick,  and  from  Martin. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  it  from  Owen,  also  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  positive  whether  he  told  me  so  or  not.  The  con- 
versation I  had  with  Owen  was  a  short  one.  I  went  to  see  him  simply 
to  ask  him  in  relation  to  the  other  part  of  the  business — that  is,  in 
reference  to  where  the  profits  went. 

Question.  Have  you  and  Kirkpatrick  settled  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Are  you  in  the  process  of  settlement  ? 
Answer.  I  have  sued  him,  and  have  had  him  arrested. 
Question.  For  what  have  you  sued  him  ? 

Answer.  For  one-half  of  the  difference  between  $16  50,  and  $17  85 
on  each  gun,  after  deducting  therefrom  $836. 
Question.  Did  you  receive  $836  from  him  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  that  receipted  for  in  full  ? 
Answer.  It  was. 

Question.  Did  not  that  conclude  you  from  suing  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir  ;  because  it  was  obtained  by  misrepresentation. 
Question.  You  have  stated  that  this  balance  was  to  go  for  political 
purposes  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  Mr.  Owen  and  Mr.  Martin  say  it  was  not 

Question.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  did  not  know  whether 
it  was  so  ;  that  you  had  not  made  up  your  mind  ? 

Answer.  I  thought  Mr.  Martin  would  not  go  into  a  matter  of  that 
magnitude  without  making  something  out  of  it. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  Mr.  Martin  or  Mr.  Owen  received 
any  of  that  difference,  the  half  of  which  you  are  suing  Kirkpatrick 
for  ? 

Answer.  It  is  difficult  to  make  up  my  mind  about  it.  I  am  suing 
and  I  expect  by  that  means  to  ascertain  the  facts. 

Question.  Kirkpatrick  insists  that  this  money,  instead  of  going  into 
your  and  his  pockets,  went  into  the  pockets  of  Mr.  Martin  and  Mr. 
Owen,  for  political  purposes  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


147 


Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  by  bringing  a  suit  I  understand  you  to  deny  it? 

Answer.  I  want  to  find  out  where  the  money  is.  If  Kirkpatrick 
received  it  half  of  it  belongs  to  me  ;  if  Owen  and  Martin  received 
it,  it  does  not  belong  to  me. 

Question.  If  they  received  it  for  political,  or  any  other  purposes, 
you  do  not  regard  it  as  belonging  to  you  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not,  because  I  agreed,  if  his  statement  was  true,  and 
they  received  the  money  for  that  purpose,  the  settlement  I  made  was 
to  be  final. 

Question.  An  I  you  have  brought  a  suit  to  test  the  matter? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Is  Kirkpatrick  a  man  of  responsibility  ? 
Answer.  I  think  so 

Question.  Is  he  able  tu  respond  to  any  judgment  you  may  be  able 
to  obtain  against  him  ? 
Answer.  I  hope  so. 

Question.  When  does  that  suit  come  off? 
Answer.  I  suppose  some  time  next  month. 

Question.  At  the  time  of  this  gun  contract  was  Mr.  Owen  spending 
most  of  his  time  in  New  York  ? 
Answer.  I  understood  so. 

Question.  For  what  length  of  time  had  he  been  engaged  in  pur- 
chasing arms  either  for  the  government  or  for  the  State  of  Indiana, 
according  to  your  understanding  ? 

Answer.  I  had  understood,  I  should  think,  for  more  than  a  year 
previous  to  this  transaction,  that  he  was  in  New  York  as  an  agent  of 
the  State  of  Indiana. 

Question.  Had  he  an  office  here  at  the  time? 

Answer.  He  had  his  headquarters  with  Winslow,  Lannier  &  Co., 
in  Wall  street. 

Question.  Is  this  the  only  transaction  you  have  had  of  the  kind? 
Answer.  That  is  the  last  one  I  have  had. 
Question    Who  is  your  attorney  in  this  city? 
Answer.  D.  C.  Birdsell. 

Question.  Has  he  any  knowledge  of  these  facts,  except  through 
you? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  think  not. 

Question.  Whom  have  you  subpoenaed  as  witnesses  in  the  suit? 
Answer.  I  have  not  subpoenaed  any. 
Question.  Whom  do  you  propose  to  subpoena? 
Answer.  There  is  only  one  party,  except  those  I  have  mentioned, 
who  knows  anything  about  this  matter. 
Question.  Who  is  he? 

Answer.  W.  S.  Crawford.  He  is  a  young  man  who  was  in  the 
office  with  me  at  the  time. 

Question.  Was  not  the  agreement  put  in  writing  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  What  would  have  been  the  amount  of  your  profits  if 
this  arrangement  had  been  carried  out  ? 
Answer.  About  $5,000. 


148 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  To  whom  did  those  guns  belong? 
Answer.  They  belonged  to  Coil's  Manufacturing  Company. 
Question.  The  Manufacturing  Company  were  paid  $16  50  ? 
Answer.  So  I  understand. 

Question.  The  guns  at  the  time  were  ready  for  delivery  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  they  were  in  the  store  here  at  the  time.  They 
were  Enfield  rifles,  made,  of  course,  on  the  other  side,  but  imported 
by  Colt's  Manufacturing  Company,  and  entered  at  the  custom-house 
here,  and  were  sold  here. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  these  guns  being  sold  to 
the  United  States  government  for  an  advance  of  three  dollars  each  ? 

Answer.  1  do  not. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  a  newspaper  article  making  that  state- 
ment ? 

Answer   I  have. 

Question.  Do  you  know  upon  what  that  article  was  founded  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  that  article  got  into  the  newspapers? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Did  you  know  anything  about  it  before  you  saw  it  in  the 
papers  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  the  editor  got  what  he  purports  to 
state  as  facts  in  that  article? 

Answer.  I  think  Mr.  Birdsell,  my  attorney,  was  talking  about  this 
matter  with  some  one  connected  with  the  Express  newspaper. 

Question.  Then  you  think  this  article  had  its  origin  through  Mr. 
Birdsell,  your  attorney  ? 

Answer.  I  took  the  paper  to  him  and  asked  him  if  he  wrote  the 
article.    He  said  he  did  not. 

Question.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Answer.  He  said  he  had  had  some  conversation  with  some  one  con- 
nected with  the  Express  office. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Birdsell  have  any  knowledge  that  these  arms  were 
sold  to  the  United  States  government  for  three  dollars  advance  each  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  had;  but  I  do  not  know.  I  should 
think  that  anything  Birdsell  might  say  about  the  matter  would 
simply  be  from  the  affidavit  I  made  in  the  commencement  of  this  suit 
against  Kirkpatrick. 

Question.  Did  you  make  any  statement  of  that  kind  in  your  affi- 
davit ? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  Birdsell  drew  upon  his  imagination 
for  this  statement  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  made  that  statement. 

Question.  Where  did  the  paper  get  the  authority  for  making  that 
statement  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell. 

Question.  What  is  the  character  and  standing  of  the  Ocean  Bank  ? 

Answer.  It  is  a  bank  of  good  standing. 

Question.  What  is  the  character  of  Martin  as  president? 


TESTIMONY. 


149 


Answer.  T  think  he  is  a  very  correct  and  clever  man. 
Question.  Is  he  a  man  of  truth  and  veracity? 
Answer.  I  presume  so. 


New  York,  February  14,  1863. 

Daniel  C.  Birdsell  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 
Answer.  In  New  York. 
Question.  What  is  your  business? 
Answer.  I  am  a  lawyer. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  in  relation  to  any  contracts  with 
the  government  since  the  breaking  out  of  the  rebellion  ? 

Answer  No  more  than  what  I  have  learned  as  counsel  for  Mr. 
Yerby.  He  commenced  a  suit  against  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  for  commis- 
sions on  a  gun  contract — guns  sold  to  Robert  Dale  Owen. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  about  that  contract? 

Answer.  I  know  nothing  except  by  hearsay — from  what  Mr.  Kirk- 
patrick and  Mr.  Yerby  have  said. 

Question.  Did  you  institute  a  suit? 

Answer.  I  did.  The  complaint  sets  up  all  I  know  about  the  mat- 
ter. I  have  also  an  order  of  arrest.  I  have  Yerby's  statement  and 
Kirkpatrick's  answer. 

Question.  The  suit  was  commenced  against  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  by  Mr. 
Yerby  for  the  purpose  of  recovering  his  portion  of  the  commissions  on 
the  sale  of  certain  guns  to  Robert  Dale  Owen,  agent  of  the  State  of 
Indiana  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Yerby  obtained  the  guns  for  $16  50  each, 
and  he  and  Kirkpatrick  entered  into  an  arrangement  by  which  Kirk- 
patrick was  to  sell  the  guns,  and  they  were  to  divide  the  profits.  Mr. 
Yerby  says,  and  also  Mr.  Crawford,  who  heard  the  arrangement,  that 
Kirkpatrick  told  Yerby  that  he  had  sold  the  guns  for  $17  85  each, 
thereby  making  a  nett  profit  of  81  35  on  each  gun.  Subsequently 
Kirkpatrick  came  to  Yerby  and  told  him  that  the  contract  would  have 
to  fall  through  unless  he  would  consent  that  they  should  take  a  profit 
of  twenty  cents  on  each  gun;  that  Martin,  the  president  of  the  Ocean 
Bank,  who  was  to  advance  the  money,  was  to  retain  the  balance — 
§1  15  on  each  gun — for  the  purpose  of  aiding  to  carry  the  republican 
State  ticket  in  Indiana,  and  consequently  they  would  only  make  ten 
cents  each  man  as  profits  upon  the  guns.  Mr.  Yerby  then  said 
that  he  had  had  the  guns  on  hand  to  sell  for  some  time,  that  he  would 
rather  make  a  little  than  make  nothing,  and  that  he  would  let  them 
go  rather  than  have  them  on  hand  longer. 

Subsequently  some  one  told  Yerby  that  Kirkpatrick  had  swindled 
him;  and  so  he  goes  to  Martin  and  asks  him  if  he  had  made  these 
statements  to  Kirkpatrick.  Martin  said  he  had  not.  I  had  no  per- 
sonal acquaintance  with  Martin,  and  I  sent  a  young  man  down  to  a 
director  of  the  bank,  a  client  of  mine,  to  get  a  letter  of  introduction 
to  him.    He  brought  me  the  letter,  and  I  went  with  it  to  Martin.. 


150 


TESTIMONY. 


Martin  appeared  very  abrupt  and  ungentleruanly  towards  me  about 
the  matter,  especially  coming,  as  I  did,  with  a  letter  of  introduction 
from  a  director  of  the  bank.  He  said  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
matter  except  to  advance  the  money  to  the  State  of  Indiana,  and  that 
Mr.  Kirkpatrick  got  the  full  price  of  the  guns — $17  85  each.  I  said 
to  him  :  te  Kirkpatrick  says  you  have  retained  $1  15  a  gun"  for  such 
and  such  purposes.  He  replied:  e<  Kirkpatrick  never  made  any  such 
statement." 

Question.  When  he  told  you  he  had  paid  Kirkpatrick  the  full 
amount  of  the  profits  did  you  understand  it  to  be  a  denial  that  he 
had  taken  this  amount? 

Answer.  I  did  not  understand  it  as  a  denial.  I  thought  he  might 
have  paid  him  the  full  amount  and  still  have  had  an  arrangement 
with  Kirkpatrick  by  which  he  would  pay  it  back.  I  asked  him  if  he 
had  ever  heard  the  statement  of  Kirkpatrick.  He  said  Kirkpatrick 
said  he  never  had  said  so.  I  said  to  Yerby,  after  leaving,  that  Martin 
had  acted  ungentlemanly  and  discourteously;  that  I  could  not  get 
anything  out  of  him,  either  by  way  of  denial  or  admission.  I  made 
that  remark  immediately  after  going  out  of  the  bank. 

Question.  Did  you,  or  not,  commence  the  suit  on  the  assumption 
that  Kirkpatrick  had  received  the  whole  of  this  amount  ? 

Answer.  1  did. 

Question.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  after  you  had  this  conver- 
sation with  Martin  you  considered  it  doubtful  whether  Kirkpatrick 
had  received  this  amount? 

Answer.  I  considered  that  Kirkpatrick  had  received  the  amount, 
but  as  to  what  he  had  done  with  it,  whether  he  had  paid  any  portion 
back  to  Martin,  or  to  other  parties,  I  knew  nothing.  I  did  not  con- 
sider that  1  had  any  answer  from  Martin  as  to  whether  Kirkpatrick 
had  paid  it  back.  I  considered  that  Kirkpatrick  had  been  paid  the 
amount  and  brought  the  suit  accordingly.  Kirkpatrick  in  his  an- 
swer admits  that  he  received  the  whole  amount. 

Question.  How  long  since  that  answer  was  filed? 

Answer.  It  was  served  February  4,  1863. 

Question.  Does  the  defendant,  Kirkpatrick,  set  up  that  he  paid  out 
any  of  this  money  for  political  purposes? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  'Will  you  turnish  the  committee  a  true  and  correct 
copy  of  Kirkpatrick's  answer  to  the  suit,  and  consider  it  a  part  of 
your  sworn  evidence  ? 

Answer.  I  will 

The  following  is  the  paper  subsequently  furnished  the  committee 
by  the  witness  : 


TESTIMONY. 


151 


NEW  YORK  SUPERIOR  COURT. 

George  W.  Yerby  ) 
ag'st  > 
Joseph  Kirkpatrick.  ) 

The  defendant  above  named  for  answer  to  the  complaint  in  this 
action  says  : 

First.  That  he  denies  each  and  every  averment  in  said  complaint, 
inconsistent  with  the  answer  or  any  part  thereof. 

Second.  That  he  never  agreed  with  said  plaintiff  to  give  him  an 
equal  half  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  all  or  any  part  of  the  rifles  or 
boxes  mentioned  in  said  complaint  ;  that  the  only  agreement,  arrange- 
ment, understanding  or  promise  between  him  and  the  said  plaintiff, 
in  regard  to  said  rifles,  arose  out  of  the  following  facts  and  circum- 
stances, and  was  as  hereinafter  stated.  The  said  defendant  wished 
to  purchase  a  number  of  Enfield  rifles,  and  so  stated  to  the  plaintiff,  who 
said  that  he  had  ten  thousand  for  sale  which  belonged  to  another 
party,  but  afterwards  proved  to  belong  to  other  parties  ;  he  showed 
defendant  a  sample  of  them,  and  at  the  request  of  defendant  intro- 
duced him  to  the  represented  owners  of  the  rifles,  that  defendant 
might  purchase  them  ;  the  plaintiff  allowed  that  they  could  not  be 
bought  for  a  less  sum  than  sixteen  dollars  and  a  half  each  ;  the 
defendant  told  him,  in  substance,  to  introduce  him  to  the  party  having 
the  rifles  for  sale,  that  the  defendant  would  make  the  best  bagain  for 
them  ;  that  he  could,  and,  in  the  event  of  purchasing  them,  would  take 
care  of  the  plaintiff,  meaning  that  he  would  compensate  him  ;  the 
defendant  being  introduced  by  plaintiff,  purchased  at  the  price  named 
above  the  lot  for  sale,  supposing  they  were  ten  thousand  in  number, 
and  afterwards  sold  them  on  his  own  account  and  for  his  own  benefit 
for  seventeen  dollars  and  eighty-five  cents  each,  to  the  agent  for  the 
State  of  Indiana,  and  so  informed  the  plaintiff  after  the  last-mentioned 
sale  ;  stating  in  substance  to  the  plaintiff  at  the  same  time  that  in 
view  of  the  sale  the  defendant  could  afford  to  and  would  pay  him  ten 
cents  on  or  for  each  of  said  rifles,  which  percentage  or  reward  the  said 
plaintiff  then  and  there  agreed  to  take,  and  declared  himself  suffi- 
ciently satisfied  with  and  grateful  for  ;  but  the  number  of  rifles 
actually  sold  and  bought  were  but  eight  thousand  three  hundred  and 
sixty. 

Third.  That  before  said  transaction  the  defendant  had  lent  the 
plaintiff  two  hundred  dollars,  for  which  he  held  plaintiff's  note  ;  that 
before  said  transaction  was  finally  consummated  he  made  the  plaintiff 
an  advance  of  a  sum,  for  which  defendant  took  a  receipt,  and  on  the 
twenty-fifth  day  of  October,  1862,  the  defendant  paid  the  plaintiff  in 
full  the  ten  cents  per  rifle,  agreed  upon  as  aforesaid,  by  delivering  to 
him  the  note  and  receipt  aforesaid  and  the  difference  between  their 
united  amounts  and  the  sum  of  eight  hundred  and  thirty-six  dollars, 
for  which  the  plaintiff  then  and  there  gave  the  defendant  a  receipt, 
and  this  payment  discharged  and  was  taken  and  intended  to  be  a  full 
payment  and  satisfaction  of  any  and  every  claim  the  plaintiff  had  upon 


152 


TESTIMONY. 


the  defendant  in  reference  to  said  rifles  or  any  of  them  ;  that  the 
plaintiff  hefore  such  payment  and  at  the  time  thereof  well  knew  that 
the  defendant  was  to  receive  for  said  rifles  seventeen  dollars  and  eighty- 
five  cents  each,  as  before  stated. 

Fourth.  That  there  was  no  agreement,  arrangement,  promise  or 
understanding  between  the  defendant  and  the  plaintiff  that  the 
plaintiff  should  in  any  way  derive  any  benefit  from  the  sale  of  the 
four  hundred  and  eighteen  boxes  containing  the  said  rifles,  or  any  of 
them  which  were  purchased  at  the  amount  stated  in  the  complaint, 
or  from  the  amount  procured  therefor  by  the  defendant,  being  two 
dollars  and  fifty  cents  each,  or  from  any  part  of  said  amount. 

Fifth.  That  each  and  every  statement  in  said  complaint,  to  the 
effect  that  the  defendant  in  any  way  deceived  or  defrauded  the 
plaintiff,  or  made  any  false  statement  or  representation  to  him,  is 
untrue  ;  and  is  also  untrue  that  he  even  stated  to  the  plaintiff  what  is 
alleged  in  the  third  paragraph  of  said  complaint,  or  anything  of 
the  same  or  similar  import  or  meaning.  It  is  also  untrue  that  the 
defendant  acted  as  agent  or  broker  for  the  plaintiff,  as  alleged  in  said 
complaint. 

Sixth.  That  the  defendant  is  not  indebted  to  the  said  plaintiff  in 
any  amount  whatever,  and  the  said  plaintiff  has  no  claim  or  demand 
against  him  of  any  nature  or  description. 

Wherefore  defendant  prays  that  the  complaint  may  be  dismissed 
with  costs. 

WM,  E.  TRAPHAGEN, 

Attorney  for  Defendant,  240  Broadivay. 

City  and  county  of  Netv  York,  ss  : 

Joseph  Kirkpatrick,  of  said  city,  the  defendant  herein,  being  sworn, 
says  that  he  has  read  the  foregoing  answer,  that  the  same  is  true  of 
his  own  knowledge  except  as  to  the  matters  therein  stated  on  his  in- 
formation and  belief,  and  as  to  those  matters  he  believes  it  to  be  a  true 
copy. 

J.  KIRKPATRICK. 

Sworn  before  me  this  4th  day  of  February,  1863. 

JOHN  BALL, 
Notary  Public  for  city  and  county  of  New  York. 

Question.  Did  you  see  a  slip  in  the  newspapers  touching  this 
contract? 

Answer.  My  attention  was  called  to  a  notice  in  the  Express  touch- 
ing this  matter. 

Question.  From  whom  did  they  obtain  that  statement? 
Answer.  I  have  no  knowledge  on  that  point. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  talk  about  this  matter  with  any  per- 
son connected  with  the  Express? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  but  I  might  have  had,  as  James  Brooks 
and  myself  are  personally  intimate.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have,  and 
I  would  not  like  to  say  that  I  have  not. 


TESTIMONY. 


153 


Question.  In  that  article  it  is  stated  that  the  State  agent,  and  a 
bank  president  of  this  city,  sought  to  retain  a  large  portion  of  the 
profits  for  political  purposes.  You  recollect  that  part  of  the  para- 
graph, do  you  ? 

Answer.  I  recollect  seeing  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  whom  the  editor  got  that  item  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  He  did  not  get  it  from  you? 

Answer.  I  might  have  talked  with  Brooks  about  the  case,  and 
about  its  being  a  singular  one. 

Question.  It  is  also  stated  that  the  State  agent  sold  those  arms  to 
the  United  States  government  for  three  dollars  apiece  more  than  they 
cost  him     Do  you  kuow  where  that  statement  came  from  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  never  heard  of  it  before  I  saw  it  in  that 
statement. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  that  statement  is  true  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Question.  Did  the  editor,  or  any  person  connected  with  that  paper, 
get  that  statement  from  you? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  do  not  believe  any  portion  of  that  article  has 
been  derived  from  anything  I  ever  said  to  any  person  or  persons.  I 
say  distinctly  that  those  portions  you  have  mentioned  have  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  person  who  can  furnish  the  com- 
mittee with  information  upon  either  of  the  main  points  involved  in 
that  article  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  That  is  to  say,  your  own  knowledge  has  been  derived 
solely  from  the  sources  you  have  mentioned  ? 

Answer,  Yes,  sir,  and  in  no  other  manner.  I  have  no  knowledge 
from  what  source  any  of  this  information  came.  I  think,  in  talking 
to  Brooks  one  night  about  these  army  frauds,  about  the  time  this  suit 
was  commenced.  I  said  something  to  him  about  this  case,  but  what 
it  was  I  do  not  recollect.  I  certainly  never  knew  anything  about  the 
State  agent  selling  the  guns  to  the  government  at  an  advanced  price. 

Question.  About  what  time  was  that  article  published? 

Answer.  It  was  not  a  great  while  since.  That  article  was  not  de- 
rived from  anything  I  said.  The  whole  latter  part  of  it  I  never  knew 
anything  about  until  I  saw  it  in  the  paper. 


New  York,  February  14,  1863. 

David  R.  Martin,  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
Answer.  In  New  York. 
Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 
Answer.  I  am  president  of  the  Ocean  Bank. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  of  a  contract  for  arms  made  by 
the  agent  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  Robert  Dale  Owen,  with  Mr.  Kirk- 
patrick  ? 


154 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  I  do. 

Question    Please  state  all  you  know  about  it. 

Answer.  Mr.  Robert  Dale  Owen,  as  agent  for  the  State  of  Indiana, 
purchased  in  my  presence  from  a  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  eight  or  nine 
thousand  Enfield  rifles,  for  $17  85  per  gun.  J.  S.  Harvey,  treasurer 
of  fhe  State  of  Indiana,  gave  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  a  check  on  the  Ocean 
Bank  for  the  entire  amount.    That  is  all  I  know  about  it,  I  believe. 

Question   Do  you  know  anything  further? 

Answer.  Nothing  pertaining  to  the  guns.  As  to  money  matters, 
I  loaned  the  State  the  money. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  an  agreement  or  under- 
standing between  Owen  and  Kirkpatrick,  or  any  other  person,  that 
any  portion  of  the  amount  should  go  for  political  purposes? 

Answer.  The  thing  is  impossible. 

Question.  Do  you  say  you  do  not  know  of  any  such  thing? 

Answer.  I  say  I  do  not  know  of  any  such  thing.  It  is  about  as 
impossible  as  that  the  heavens  should  fall.  I  know  that  the  guns 
were  purchased  in  my  presence  at  $17  85  each  ;  and  that  Mr.  Harvey 
came  on  here,  and  in  my  room  gave  a  check  for  the  guns  at  that 
price. 

Question.  Was  there  ever  any  conversation,  or  understanding,  or 
agreement,  or  arrangement  of  any  kind,  that  any  portion  of  the 
amount  should  go  for  political  purposes  ? 

Answer.  Never  in  my  presence.  .  When  I  saw  that  article  in  the 
newspapers,  I  thought  the  thing  ,  was  so  absurd  that  I  called  Kirk- 
patrick's  attention  to  it.  There  never  was  a  single  cent  paid, 
and  the  guns  were  purchased  at  least  for  from  50  cents  to  $1  50  each 
less  than  they  could  have  been  bought,  had  I  not  secured  them  from 
Mr.  Kirkpatrick  before  I  saw  Mr.  Owen. 

Question.  Then  you  say  there  was  never,  to  your  knowledge,  any 
suggestion  of  that  kind  ? 

Answer.  Never.  Not  the  least  suggestion  or  intimation  of  any 
such  kind  or  nature. 

Question.  The  money  was  advanced  by  you  to  Mr.  Harvey? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  The  bank  loaned  the  State  some  $250,000,  and 
afterwards  Mr.  Harvey  drew  his  checks  upon  the  bank  for  the  amount. 

Question.  Did  you  receive  anything  for  the  advance  of  the  money? 

Answer.  Only  seven  per  cent,  interest.  I  discounted  a  note,  aud 
when  the  general  government  paid  back  to  the  State  of  Indiana  the 
money,  less  the  interest,  they  came  and  paid  the  note,  and  we  made 
a  rebate  on  the  note  from  the  time  the  note  had  to  run  to  maturity. 

Question.  Was  Harvey  here  at  the  time  ? 

Answer.  He  was  here  at  the  time  the  guns  were  paid  for,  but  not 
at  the  time  they  were  purchased.  Governor  Morton  telegraphed  me 
to  know  what  10,000  guns  could  be  purchased  for?  That  was  the 
latter  part  of  August  or  the  first  part  of  September,  1862.  I  tried 
the  market  pretty  thoroughly  and  telegraphed  back  that  they  could 
be  purchased  for  about  $20,  cash.  In  his  telegram  he  requested  me 
to  go  to  Schuyler,  Hartly  &  Graham.  I  feel  quite  positive  that  their 
asking  price  was  $21,  but  1  telegraphed  Governor  Morton  that 
they  could  be  purchased  for  $20,  cash.    Three  or  four  days  afterwards 


TESTIMONY. 


155 


I  received  a  telegram  from  G-ov.  Morton  asking  me  if  I  could  lend  the 
State  $250,000  ior  four  months,  to  purchase  the  guns  with  ?  I  an- 
swered him,  i(  I  will:  what  shall  I  do  ?"  I  received  a  telegram  two  or 
three  days  afterwards  saying,  "  Robert  Dale  Owen  will  be  in  New 
York  to  purchase  guns.  Consult  with  him."  Mr.  Owen  called, 
talked  about  the  guns,  and  proposed  to  buy  for  nineteen  or  twenty 
dollars,  I  forget  which.  I  then  stated  to  him  that  I  had  procured 
the  refusal  of  these  guns  up  to  the  next  day  at  three  o'clock,  at 
$17  85  each.  We  agreed  to  meet  the  man  at  my  office  the  next  day 
at  two  o'clock.  They  did  meet,  and  examined  the  guns  very  thor- 
oughly. They  were  a  London-made  gun  and  just  such  as  Owen  said 
he  wanted,  and  without  consulting  me,  he  being  the  State  agent,  as 
he  said,  as  to  the  propriety  of  purchasing  them,  he  made  the  pur- 
chase at  $17  85  each,  cash,  Mr.  Owen  preferred  to  make  an  arrange- 
ment for  the  money  with  Winslow,  Lannier  &  Co.  He  did  make  an 
arrangement  with  them,  and  they  advanced  enough  to  pay  the  duties 
on  the  guns,  which  was  between  forty  and  fifty  thousand  dollars. 
Mr.  Jessee  J  Brown  came  here  at  that  time,  expecting  to  assist  Mr. 
Owen  in  the  money  matters  ;  but  Winslow,  Lannier  &  Co.  declined 
to  advance  the  money  for  the  purchase  of  the  guns,  and  they  then 
applied  to  me,  and  I  advanced  the  money  to  pay  back  to  Winslow, 
Lannier  &  Co.,  and  all  the  money  to  pay  for  the  guns,  being  in  the 
aggregate  from  $237,000  to  $240',000. 

Question.  The  amount  of  money  you  loaned  to  the  State  was  the 
amount  necessary  to  pay  for  the  guns  at  $17  85  each  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  the  duties  on  the  guns,  the  expenses  of  in- 
specting, boxing,  and  shipping,  &c. 

Question.  Do  I  understand  you  that  the  duties  had  to  be  paid  by 
the  State,  in  addition  to  the  $17  85  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  suppose  Owen  could  have  gone  to  Washing- 
ton and  had  that  remitted,  but- he  did  not  perhaps  think  he  could,  and 
so  the  duties  were  paid.    All  that,  however,  was  refunded  afterwards. 

Question.  Do  you,  of  your  own  knowledge,  know  the  amount  which 
was  refunded  by  the  government — whether  it  was  the  full  amount 
you  loaned  the  State  ? 

Answer.  I  could  tell  by  my  books,  but  it  was  for  the  precise  sum, 
without  any  interest. 

Question.  Are  you  sure  that  the  amount  you  referred  to  as  the 
amount  you  loaned  the  State,  and  which  the  government  refunded, 
includes  the  duties  upon  the  guns  ? 

Answer.  I  am  quite  positive  of  it. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  the  exact  amount  of  the  duties  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell,  but  I  have  at  the  bank  the  check  which  I  gave 
Winslow,  Lannier  &  Co  for  their  advances. 

Question.  Was  this  purchase  of  arms  made  by  Mr.  Owen  for  the 
State  of  Indiana  a  good  purchase  ? 

Answer.  From  my  knowledge  of  the  gun  market,  I  think  they  were 
purchased  at  least  two  dollars  a  gun  cheaper  than  they  could  have 
been  purchased  had  I  not  got  the  refusal  of  that  lot  as  I  did. 

Question.  Was  there  anybody  in  the  market  purchasing  guns  ex- 
cept the  general  government  and  the  State  of  Indiana? 


156 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  There  was  a  plenty  of  individuals  in  the  market.  I  went 
to  a  great  many  places  to  inquire  tor  guns,  and  the  cry  was,  "  No 
guns,"  "  no  guns."  Before  the  guns  were  delivered  1  advanced 
$75,000,  which  the  party  insisted  on  having,  though  he  was  not  en- 
titled to  a  cent  before  the  guns  were  all  delivered.  They  wanted  to 
"break  up  the  contract,  and  they  said  they  would  give  twenty  dollars  a 
gun  to  have  them  delivered  back  to  them. 

Question.  You  derived  no  benefit  whatever  from  the  contract  except 
the  interest  upon  the  money  you  advanced  to  the  State  ? 

Answer.  None  whatever. 

Question.  Can  you  state  any  reason  why  Owen  did  not  procure  a 
remission  of  the  duties  upon  those  guns  ?  Did  you  hear  any  state- 
ment from  him  explanatory  of  the  reason  ? 

Answer.  He  merely  remarked  it  would  take  him  some  time  to  do 
it  ;  that  the  government  would  do  it  eventually  in  a  settlement  with 
the  State,  though  not  immediately.  That  was  said  in  a  mere  casual 
conversation. 

Question.  The  only  effect  of  his  not  doing  so  was  to  make  it  neces- 
sary for  the  State  to  borrow  $40,000  more  money  than  otherwise  would 
have  been  necessary? 

Answer.  If  the  government  had  remitted  the  duties,  of  course  the 
State  would  not  have  borrowed  that  amount  of  money.  I  made  a 
difference  of  the  interest  upon  $40,000  for  eighty  or  ninety  days. 

Question.  If  any  portion  of  the  money  involved  in  this  transaction, 
either  in  the  purchase  of  arms  or  otherwise,  was  reserved  for  political 
purposes,  the  fact  did  not  come  to  your  knowledge? 

Answer.  I  never  heard  of  it  at  all. 

Question.  You  made  the  bargain  yourself  with  Kirkpatrick? 

Answer.  I  got  the  refusal  of  the  guns  from  him  because  of  this  tele- 
gram from  Governor  Morton. 

Question.  You  had  no  conference  at  all  upon  the  subject  of  this 
purchase  with  Mr.  Yerby  ? 

Answer.  No  correspondence.  He  called  to  see  me,  to  ask  all  these 
questions  you  are  asking  me.  That  was  after  the  purchase  was  made, 
and  after  he  acknowledged  he  had  received  his  commissions.  He  ac- 
knowledged that  he  had  given  a  receipt  for  his  commissions,  but  inas- 
much as  Kirkpatrick  had  made  so  much  more  than  he  expected  he 
intended  to  get  a  share. 

Question.  To  what  place  were  the  guns  shipped? 

Answer.  To  Indianapolis,  direct. 

Question.  Was  there  an  immediate  want  of  those  guns  in  Indian- 
apolis at  that  time? 

Answer.  All  I  know  is  the  information  I  obtained  from  Governor 
Morton.  It  was  said  at  the  time  that  they  were  of  very  great  impor- 
tance. 

Question.  Was  it  necessary  that  those  duties  should  be  paid  before 
you  could  get  the  guns  ? 

Answer.  The  parties  who  owned  the  guns  had  never  paid  the 
duties.  They  would  not  or  could  not  advance  the  money,  and  Mr. 
Owen  had  to  pay  them  in  order  to  get  the  guns. 


TESTIMONY.  157 

Question.  How  long  after  the  purchase  was  made  was  it  before  the 
government  refunded  the  money  ? 

Answer.  About  eighty  or  ninety  days.  It  might  have  been  a  little 
longer. 


New  York,  Fthuony  14,  1863. 

Joseph  Kirkpatrick,  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 
Answer.  In  New  York. 
Question.  What  is  your  busines  ? 
Answer.  I  am  a  general  merchant  now? 

Question.  State  whether  you  have  had  any  contracts  with  the  gov- 
ernment for  the  sale  of  arms  since  the  breaking  out  of  chis  rebellion. 

Answer.  I  was  interested  in  one  contract  with  the  government  to 
supply  26,000  Enfield  rifles,  which  I  went  to  England  for.  I  did  not 
get  them  in  consequence  of  the  troubles  growing  out  of  the  Mason  and 
Slidell  affair.  I  then  went  before  the  commission,  composed  of 
Messrs.  Owen  and  Holt,  and  they  cut  the  contract  down  to  8,000, 
which  number  I  delivered.  My  partner  and  myself  had  expended 
considerable  money  in  connexion  with  the  contract,  and  I  had  been 
to  England  once.  In  consideration  of  these  facts,  and  that  we  had 
not  failed  to  perform  the  contract  from  any  want  of  energy  upon  our 
part,  they  allowed  us  to  deliver  8,000  guns. 

Question.  Were  they  long  or  short  Enfields? 

Answer.  Long. 

Question.  At  what  price? 

Answer.  Twenty  dollars  was  the  original  contract  price  made  under 
Cameron. 

Question.  When  was  the  contract  made? 
Answer.  On  the  second  of  November,  1861. 
Question.  When  were  the  8,000  delivered? 

Answer.  The  last  of  them  in  July,  1862.  and  all  between  May  and 
June. 

Question.  Is  that  the  only  arms  contract  you  have  had  with  the 
general  government? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  State  whether  you  have  had  any  other  contract  for  fur- 
nishing arms  either  to  the  general  government  or  to  any  of  the  States. 

Answer.  The  only  other  transaction  I  have  had  was  a  sale  of  8,360 
guns  to  the  State  of  Indiana.    That  was  in  September,  1862. 

Question.  With  whom  did  you  make  the  contract  for  those  arms? 

Answer.   With  Robert  Dale  Owen. 

Question.  When  were  they  delivered? 

Answer.  The  delivery  commenced  upon  the  commencement  of  their 
inspection,  two  or  three  days  after  the  sale  was  made,  which  was  on 
the  19th  of  September;  but  it  was  three  weeks  or  so  before  they  were 
all  delivered. 

Question.  What  kind  of  guns  were  they  ? 


158 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  Long  Enfield  rifles,  made  in  London. 
Question.  At  what  price? 
Answer   $17  85. 

Question.  Did  the  State  pay,  or  did  you  pay,  the  duty  ? 

Answer.  The  State  paid  the  duty.    The  guns  were  in  bond. 

Question.  What  was  the  aggregate  of  the  duties  upon  the  guns? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  something  like  $50,000.  It  may  have  been 
more.  I  think  the  duty  was  thirty  per  cent,  upon  the  original  cost, 
and  I  forget  what  that  was. 

Question.  Then  the  State  of  Indiana  was  to  pay  you  $17  85  for  them 
in  bond  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  get  them  out  of  bond  the  best  way  they 
could. 

Question.  Of'  course  you  could  only  get  them  out  of  bond  by  paving 
the  duty  ? 

Answer.  That  is  all.  It  had  been  the  rule  previous  to  this  for  the 
States  to  get  guns  out  of  bond  by  getting  a  free  permit  from  the  gov- 
ernment ;  but  Owen  did  not  get  that. 

Question.  With  whom  did  you  negotiate  that  contract — with  Owen 
in  the  first  instance,  or  with  some  other  party  ? 

Answer.  It  was  with  Owen  entirely.  Mr.  Martin  knew  that  I 
was  importing  guns  While  in  England  I  made  an  arrangement 
with  a  house  to  have  them  ship  guns  to  me  as  their  agent,  and  I  was 
expecting  guns  at  that  time.  I  should  state  that  I  afterwards  sold  for 
those  parties  2,000  guns  to  Captain  Crispin,  ordnance  officer. 

Question.  Long  Enfields  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  At  what  price? 

Answer.  At  $15,  with  exchange  over  twenty-three  per  cent.  I 
do  not  remember  what  that  was. 

Question.  About  what  time  was  that? 

Answer.  About  the  latter  part  of  July,  1862.  I  arrived  home  on 
the  first  of  July,  and  these  guns  arrived  two  or  three  weeks  after- 
wards. 

Question.  You  then  had  no  definite  contract  with  Martin  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.    I  contracted  entirely  with  Owen. 

Question.  Was  the  money  you  spoke  of,  $50,000,  advanced  by 
Winslow,  Lannier  &  Co.  before  or  after  the  contract  was  perfected  ? 

Answer.  After  the  contract  with  Owen  was  perfected. 

Question.  How  long  was  that  advance  made  by  that  house  before 
the  entire  amount  was  paid? 

Answer.  I  should  think  at  least  a  month.  I  may  be  mistaken  as 
to  three  or  four  days,  but  it  was  in  that  neighborhood. 

Question.  Was  the  money  all  paid  at  the  same  time  by  the  State? 

Answer.  Yes,  by  Mr.  Harvey,  the  State  treasurer.  Mr.  Harvey 
was  here  and  all  the  papers  were  fixed  up  by  him. 

Question.  1  understand  that  this  money  was  paid  to  you  about  a 
mouth  alter  the  contract  was  made? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  was  the  object  of  procuring  the  advance  from 
Winslow,  Lannier  &  Co.  of  money  to  pay  the  duties  on  the  guns  in 


TESTIMONY.  159 

advance  of  completing  the  contract  with  you  by  paying  you  the 
amount  ? 

Answer.  My  contract  with  Owen  was,  that  as  soon  as  the  guns  were 
inspected,  he  was  to  pay  me  for  them  at  the  rate  of  $17  85  each,  and 
that  inspection  could  not  be  had  until  after  the  guns  were  out  of  bond. 

Question.  So  the  inspection  commenced  immediately  after  the  guns 
were  got  out  of  bond  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  Owen  himself  here  all  the  time  these  events  were 
transpiring  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  was  the  exact  amount  paid  you  by  Mr.  Owen,  or 
rather  by  Mr.  Harvey,  the  treasurer  of  the  State  of  Indiana? 

Answer.  I  have  here  an  exact  copy  of  the  invoice.  Mr.  Owen  de- 
ducted from  my  bill  §1,672  for  implements  which  the  State  had  to 
purchase,  which  should  have  been,  but  were  not,  with  the  guns. 

Here  is  a  copy  of  the  invoice  : 

Xew  York,  September  22,  1862. 

State  of  Indiana, 

Hon.  Robert  Dale  Owen,  Agent, 

Bought  Of  J.  KlRKPATRICK. 


8,360  Enfield  rifles,  at  $17  So  '.   8149,226  00 

418  cases,  containing  20  each,  at  $2  50    1,045  00 

Cartage   53  13 


150,324  13 

Deduct  for  cost  of  implements  under  protest,  to  be  referred  to  Mr. 

Harvey  or  Governor  Morton   1,672  00 


Question.  The  sum  of  $150,324  13,  less  $1,672,  deducted,  is  the 
exact  amount  you  received  from  the  State  of  Indiana,  through  Mr. 
Harvey,  for  those  guns? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  received  it  in  cash  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  received  a  check  upon  the  Ocean  Bank^  and 
got  the  cash  from  that  bank. 

Question.  The  invoice  you  have  presented  is  the  one  upon  which  the 
settlement  was  made  ? 

Answer.  The  items  are  exactly  as  the  invoice  was  that  Mr.  Harvey 
took  from  me  in  duplicate.  I  cannot  state,  of  my  own  knowledge, 
what  he  did  with  the  invoice,  but  he  told  me  afterwards  that  he  was 
sorry  he  bought  the  guns  at  all,  as  he  was  going  to  turn  them  over 
immediately  to  the  government,  as  the  government  had  made  a  fuss 
about  the  State  purchasing  guns.  He  said  they  did  not  want  State 
agents  to  come  in  and  buy  guns  while  the  general  government  was  in 
the  market  buying. 

Question.  Did  you  yourself  realize  out  of  that  transaction  for  your- 
self, and  the  persons  for  whom  you  were  acting,  Colt's  Manufacturing 
Company,  the  entire  amount  of  that  invoice,  or  did  you  pay  any  por- 
tion  of  the  amount  by  way  of  commissions,  bonuses,  or  the  like,  to  any 
other  person  ? 


160 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  1  realized  the  difference  between  what  I  bought  them  at, 
$16  50  each,  and  what  I  sold  them  for,  §17  85,  less  $836,  which  I 
gave  to  Yerby  as  commissions,  using  him  as  a  broker,  and  less  also 
the  $1,072  deducted  as  I  have  stated  above. 

Question.  Was  the  $830  the  entire  amount  which  was  paid  out  by 
way  of  commissions,  or  bonuses,  or  the  like,  in  that  transaction  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  did  you  happen  to  pay  that  commission  ? 

Answer.  Yerby  was  a  sort  of  commission  broker.  He  knew  I  was 
dealing  in  guns,  and  came  to  me  to  know  if  I  wanted  to  purchase 
10,000,  as  he  said,  Enfield  rifles,  of  London  make.  In  the  meantime 
Martin  had  sent  up  to  me  to  come  down  to  the  bank  to  inquire  whether 
I  had  any  Enfield  rifles  coming.  He  had  received  letters  from  Indi- 
ana requesting  him  to  get  the  refusal  of  guns,  as  they  were  scarce  in 
the  market.  He,  knowing  that  I  had  been  in  the  gun  trade,  sent  for  me 
to  know  whether  I  had  any.  1  told  him  I  had  some  coming,  but  did 
not  know  whether  they  would  be  here  in  time.  The  day  previous  to 
Owen's  arrival  Yerby  came  into  the  office  and  wanted  to  know  if  I 
could  use  10,000  Enfield  rifles,  which  a  man  had  put  into  his  hands 
for  sale,  and  of  which  he  had  samples  in  his  office.  I  told  him  I  would 
look  at  the  samples.  I  saw  them,  and  saw  that  they  were  superior 
guns,  made  by  a  leading  house  in  London,  and  that  they  were  such 
guns  as  Indiana  would  be  likely  to  buy.  I  told  Yerby  I  thought  I 
might  want  them,  and  told  him  to  retain  the  samples  until  I  sent  for 
them.  The  next  day  I  saw  Owen,  and  appointed  a  time  when  he  was 
to  meet  me  at  the  Ocean  Bank.  He  met  me  there  and  wanted  to  see 
the  samples.  I  sent  the  samples  down,  and  asked  him  $18  for  the 
guns.  I  told  him  I  was  satisfied  I  could  get  that  lor  them.  He 
wanted  to  beat  me  down  to  a  lower  price,  and  I  finally  told  him  if  he 
wanted  the  guns  he  might  have  them  for  §17  85.  He  examined  them 
for  some  time  and  then  purchased  them.  After  he  had  purchased 
them  he  said  he  had  heard  of  that  same  lot  of  guns  before,  and  knew 
them  to  be  a  superior  lot,  and  had  made  up  his  mind  to  get  them  if 
he  could. 

I  did  not  know  who  owned  the  guns  at  the  time  Yerby  showed 
them  to  me.  Yerby  would  not  tell  me  who  owned  them.  1  told  him 
to  introduce  me  directly  to  the  owners  of  the  guns,  and  I  would  give 
him  a  commission  for  his  trouble.  That  trouble  consisted  in  showing 
the  samples  and  introducing  me  to  the  owners,  and  lor  that  1  agreed 
to  pay  him  a  brokerage. 

Question.  And  that  payment  to  him  was  made  to  carry  out  the 
arrangement? 

Answer.  It  was  ;  and  he  says  in  his  receipt,  "  in  lull  for  my  com- 
missions." 

Question.  Was  this  interview  with  Yerby  before  or  after  your  first 
interview  with  Owen  ? 

Answer.  The  interview  as  to  the  amount  I  was  to  pay  Yerby  was 
alter  my  first  interview  with  Owen,  and  after  I  made  up  my  mind 
that  Owen  would  purchase  them  at  $17  85.  I  told  Yerby  I  could  pay 
him  ten  cents  a  gun.    He  told  me  that  §16  50  was  what  he  was  au- 


TESTIMONY. 


161 


thorized  to  sell  them  for;  but  I  thought  that  by  being  introduced  to 
the  owners  I  could  do  better  than  that. 
Question.  Where  did  you  purchase  them  ? 

Answer.  I  purchased  them  here  of  the  agent  of  Colt's  Manufac- 
turing Company. 

Question.  Owen  said  he  had  heard  of  this  same  lot  of  guns. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  They  had  been  imported  by  Colt's  company 
from  England  under  a  contract  which  Colt  had  with  the  government. 
There  was  some  falure  upon  his  part  to  perform  the  contract,  and  the 
contract  was  annulled  by  the  government,  and  the  guns  had  been  lying 
in  bond  some  months;  and  most  gun-dealers  knew  of  this  lot  of  guns, 
and  they  had  been  offered  to  the  government  a  dozen  times.  They 
had  been  held  at  $20  or  $21.  A  man  by  the  name  of  Archer  had 
shown  me  one  of  those  guns  at  $18  50;  but  an  agent  told  me  they 
had  held  them  at  $20. 

Question.  Has  Yerby  sued  you? 

Answer.  He  has. 

Question.  For  what? 

Answer.  For  one-half  I  made  upon  the  transaction,  alleging  that 
he  was  a  partner  with  me,  and  saying  that  I  had  agreed  if  he  pur- 
chased the  guns  I  would  give  him  half  the  profits. 

Question.  State  whether,  in  any  conversation  with  Yerby,  you  said 
to  him  that  the  only  amount  of  commissions  you  realized  was  twenty 
cents  on  each  gun;  that  although  the  guns  were  sold  to  Owen,  or  to 
the  State  of  Indiana,  for  $17  85,  the  remainder  of  the  profits  over  and 
above  $16  50  was  reserved  by  Owen  or  by  other  parties  for  certain 
purposes  in  the  State  of  Indiana  or  elsewhere. 

Answer.  No,  sir;  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Question.  Did  you  refer,  in  any  conversation  with  him,  to  any 
political  motives  connected  either  with  the  sale  of  the  guns,  or  the 
proceeds  of  the  guns,  or  the  profits  upon  the  sale  of  the  guns  ? 

Answer.    No,  sir. 

Question.  Then  no  portion  of  the  money  arising  from  the  sale  of 
those  guns,  or  money  growing  out  of  the  transaction  in  any  way,  was 
retained  by  either  Harvey,  the  treasurer  of  the  State,  or  by  Owen,  or 
by  anybody  else,  for  any  political  purpose,  or  any  other  purpose  what- 
ever ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  On  the  contrary,  you  realized  for  your  own  exclusive 
benefit  the  whole  amount,  except  the  two  deductions  you  have  named  ? 
Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  Was  any  proposition  made  to  you  at  any  time  by  any 
person  connected  with  this  transaction,  either  in  behalf  of  the  State 
of  Indiana,  or  otherwise,  to  make  any  reservation  of  pay,  of  bonuses, 
or  of  commissions,  except  on  the  part  of  Yerby  himself? 

Answer.  I  never  had  even  a  hint  of  such  a  thing  from  any  one,  or 
anything  which  a  shrewd  man  could  construe  into  a  hint  of  that 
kind.  I  offered  Owen  and  Harvey,  when  they  were  talking  about  the 
payment  of  the  money,  to  give  them  a  check  for  $1,000,  if  they  would 
give  me  back  the  guns,  so  that  I  might  sell  them  to  the  government. 
And  I  would  have  made  money  by  doing  so.  They  refused  to  do  it, 
Part  iii  11 


162 


TESTIMONY. 


on  the  ground  that  they  had  made  a  purchase,  and  that  they  were  not 
speculating  in  guns. 

Question.  Was  there  anything  in  the  conduct  of  Owen  or  Harvey 
which  showed  a  want  of  interest  in  the  State  of  Indiana,  or  in  the 
government  ? 

Answer.  I  thought,  for  my  interest,  they  were  two  zealous  for  the 
State  and  government. 


New  York,  April  21,  1862. 

Wm.  Boardman,  sworn : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
Answer.  In  this  city. 
Question.  What  is  your  business? 
Answer.  I  am  a  steam-engine  builder. 

Question.  Have  you  now,  or  have  you  had,  any  interest  in  vessels 
sold  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  had  an  interest  in  one  ship  which  was  purchased  by  the 
government. 

Question.  What  was  its  name  ? 

Answer.  The  Santiago  de  Cuba. 

Question.  When  was  she  sold  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  think  in  September. 

Question.  What  price  did  the  government  pay  ? 

Answer.  §200,000,  I  believe. 

Question.  Through  whom  was  she  sold  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  The  first  I  heard  of  the  sale  being  negotiated  was  through 
the  president  of  the  company,  Juan  C.  De  Mier.  It  was  at  his  office 
that  I  learned  that  fact. 

Question.  What  did  you  learn  there  ? 

Answer.  I  learned  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  make  a  sale  through 
a  Mr.  Burt,  and  a  gentleman  who  was  associated  with  him,  by  the 
name  of  Sedgwick. 

Question.  What  Sedgwick  ? 

Answer.  I  understood  afterwards  that  he  was  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Kepresentatives,  but  I  did  not  know  it  at  the  time.  I  sub- 
sequently learned  the  fact  to  be  so,  because  I  saw  him  at  Washington. 

Question.  You  knew  him  to  be  the  Sedgwick  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  learned  from  this  De  Mier,  at  his  office,  that  he  was 
negotiating  a  sale  of  the  vessel  through  those  two  gentlemen  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Question.  What  next  occurred  ? 

Answer.  We  had  several  interviews  at  the  office — Mr.  Burt,  Mr. 
Sedgwick,  Mr.  De  Mier,  and  Mr.  Barault,  one  of  the  principal  owners — 
in  relation  to  the  sale  of  the  vessel.  Captain  Cheesman,  of  the  ship, 
was  also  there. 

Question.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  negotiation  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


163 


Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  state  minutely  what  transpired, 
as  it  is  some  time  since  the  transaction  occurred.  One  question  dis- 
cussed was  as  to  the  commissions  to  be  paid  on  account  of  making  the 
sale.  There  was  a  talk  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Burt,  when  Mr.  Burt 
and  Mr.  Sedgwick  were  in  there  at  one  time,  about  charging  five  per 
cent,  commissions. 

Question.  What  was  said  by  Burt,  or  any  one  else,  touching  that 
point  ? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  that  Burt  said  we  ought  to  have  five 
per  cent. 

Question.  Who  was  "we  ?" 

Answer.  Whether  he  meant  himself  individually,  or  whether  he 
meant  to  associate  others  with  him,  of  course  I  did  not  understand. 
We  relied  more  upon  Mr.-  Sedgwick  than  upon  Mr  Burt. 

Question.  Why  ? 

Answer.  The  fact  that  Burt  told  me  of  his  position  as  a  member  of 
Congress,  also  that  he  was  upon  the  naval  committee,  gave  me  to  un- 
derstand that  the  government  would  purchase  the  vessel  under  almost 
any  circumstances,  if  Sedgwick  recommended  it — that  is,  that  we  need 
have  no  fears  but  what  the  ship  would  be  sold,  Those  were  Burt's 
words. 

Question.  Where  were  you  and  Burt  when  he  told  you  this  ? 
Answer.  He  told  it  to  me  on  two  or  three  occasions — I  think,  in 
Mr.  De  Mier's  office. 

Question.  Who  were  present  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Mr.  De  Mier  was  present,  and  the  captain  of  the 
ship. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  state  this  to  you  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Sedg- 
wick himself  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not  ;  certainly  not  exactly  those  words. 

Question.  What  did  he  state  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Sedgwick  ? 

Answer.  That  there  would  be  no  trouble  about  selling  the  ship  ; 
that  if  there  was  any  difficulty  here  about  selling  her,  he  and  Sedg- 
wick, or  that  Sedgwick  would  go  to  Washington,  and  negotiate  the 
sale  there. 

Question.  What  else  was  done  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Burt,  or  Mr.  Sedgwick,  (I  cannot  say  which,)  said  they 
would  go  to  Washington,  as  they  had  some  difficulty  about  making 
the  sale  here  to  Morgan.  Mr.  Sedgwick  did  go,  and  one  or  two  let- 
ters were  had  from  Mr.  Sedgwick  in  regard  to  the  purchase  of  the 
vessel  by  the  government,  while  he  was  in  Washington. 

Question.  Letters  to  whom  ? 

Answer.  I  will  not  undertake  to  say,  though  I  saw  one  of  them. 

Question.  What  was  the  purport  of  that  letter  ? 

Answer.  I  would  not  undertake  to  give  the  substance  of  it,  any 
further  than  to  say  that  it  had  relation  to  the  ship.  I  saw  the  letter 
in  Mr.  De  Mier's  office,  but  whether  it  was  directed  to  him  or  to  Burt, 
I  do  not  know. 

Question.  What  else  was  done  ? 

Answer.  During  these  different  interviews  much  was  said  about 
Mr.  Morgan  buying  the  ships. 


164 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Was  anything  said  or  done  with  Mr.  Morgan  about  buy- 
ing the  ship  ? 

Answer.  I  only  know  the  facts  I  have  stated. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  interview  with  Morgan  upon  the 
subject  ? 

Answer.  I  went  there  with  Sedgwick  and  Burt  after,  I  think,  the 
bill  of  sale  of  the  ship  was  made  out  and  a  search  for  liens  against 
the  ship  was  made, I  think,  by  order  of  Mr.  Morgan.  At  any  rate, 
Sedgwick  or  Burt,  one  or  the  other,  remarked  that  we  had  got  to 
satisfy  Mr.  Morgan  as  to  the  title  of  the  ship. 

Question.  Did  either  of  them  have  any  consultation  with  Morgan 
at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Sedgwick  had  a  few  minutes'  conversation  with 
him,  and  we  all  left. 

Question.  Did  Sedgwick  have  a  conversation  with  him  in  your 
presence,  or  was  it  by  himself? 

Answer.  I  did  not  hear  what  was  said. 

Question.  Did  you  see  him  in  conversation  with  Morgan  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  and  Sedgwick  and  Burt  go  there  for  the  purpose 
of  completing  the  sale? 

Answer.  1  do  not  recollect.  If  I  recollect  right,  Mr.  De  Mier  was 
along  also  ;  and  I  think  the  captain  of  the  ship  was  along.  I  think  the 
visit  was  in  reference  to  perfecting  the  sale,  though  I  am  not  positive. 

Question.  What  else  transpired  ? 

Answer.  When  those  gentlemen  were  in  the  office  on  one  occasion, 
talking  about  commissions  to  be  paid,  it  was  remarked  by  one  or  the 
other  of  them,  (whether  Burt  or  Sedgwick,  I  do  not  know,  but  my  im- 
pression is  it  was  Burt,)  that  the  owners  of  this  ship  would  have  to 
pay  Mr.  Morgan  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  commission,  and  there  was 
some  discussion  as  to  the  merit  of  his  making  such  a  claim,  or  of  his 
right  to  do  so.  It  was  stated,  that  although  the  purchase  was  not 
made  directly  by  him,  still  that  he  had  had  considerable  trouble  about 
the  matter,  and  no  ship  could  be  purchased  unless  he  got  his  commis- 
sion of  two  and  a  half  per  cent. 

Question.  What,  if  anything,  was  said  about  further  commissions 
than  the  two  and  a  half  per  cent.  ? 

Answer.  They  wanted  five  per  cent,  for  themselves,  as  I  understand 
the  matter,  but  afterwards  they  agreed  to  take  two  and  a  half  per 
cent.,  and  I  suppose  that  was  paid  to  them. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  disposition  was  made  of  that  two  and 
a  half  per  cent,  among  the  other  parties  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  only  know  that  Mr.  De  Mier  told  me 
that  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  was  to  go  to  Morgan,  and  two  and  a 
half  per  cent,  to  the  other  gentleman. 

Question.  And  from  what  they  had  stated  previously,  the  sale  of 
the  vessel  was  effected  in  that  way  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Has  she  been  paid  for  by  the  government  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


TESTIMONY. 


165 


Question.  What  commissions,  if  any,  have  been  charged  to  the  com- 
pany ? 

Answer.  According  to  a  statement  rendered  to  me  from  Mr.  De 
Mier's  office,  (whether  by  him  or  the  principal  stockholder  of  the  ship, 
I  do  not  know,)  $10,000  was  paid  for  commissions  first  on  the  sale  of 
the  ship. 

Question.  To  what  persons? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  now  whether  the  persons'  names  were  men- 
tioned or  not.    I  can  tell  by  referring  to  the  statement. 
Question.  What  other  commissions  were  paid  ? 
Answer.  There  was  some  $5,000,  I  think,  charged  by  Mr.  DeMier. 
Question.  For  what? 

Answer.  For  his  aid  and  assistance,  I  suppose,  in  effecting  this  sale. 
Question.  Any  further  commissions  ? 

Answer.  A  charge  of  some  nine  or  ten  thousand  dollars  is  made  by 
the  principal  stockholder.  The  statement  rendered  does  not  say  what 
the  charge  is  for. 

Question.  Then,  in  all,  the  commissions  charged  to  the  stockholders 
amount  to  about  twenty-five  thousand  dollars? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  made  any  inquiry  in  reference  to  what  these 
items  mean  ? 

Answer  Mr.  Barault,  the  principal  stockholder,  and  myself,  have 
had  some  conversation  in  regard  to  that  matter.  He  claimed  it  as  a 
commission,  inasmuch  as  that  the  vessel  was  sold,  and  he  lost  his  op- 
portunity of  making  any  money  out  of  the  agency  of  the  vessel.  He 
was  to  have  had  the  agency  of  the  Santiago  de  Cuba  if  she  had  con- 
tinued to  run  there. 

Question.  So  he  charged  this  $10,000  in  order  to  make  up? 

Answer.  It  was  nearly  $10,000. 

Question.  Was  anything  said  in  your  negotiation  with  Morgan 
about  the  price  of  the  ship  ? 

Answer,  Never  in  my  presence.  I  only  know  what  was  said  from 
those  other  gentlemen." 

Question.  From  whom — De  Mier  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know,  but  Mr.  De  Mier  may  have  mentioned  it. 
It  was  in  his  office. 

Question.  While  he  was  there  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Is  there  anything  else  about  the  transaction  which  you 
can  communicate  ? 

Answer.  The  question  came  up  why  Morgan  would  not  buy  the 
ship,  and  I  think  the  reason  assigned  was  that  he  had  bought  another 
ship  about  her  size  at  considerable  less  money,  and  for  that  reason  he 
objected. 

Question.  Objected  for  paying  so  much  for  the  ship  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir.    And  some  other  matters  were  talked  of. 
Question.  Was  it  stated  what  he  would  pay  for  the  ship  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  it  was. 


166 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  Was  any  reason  given  why  he  was  reluctant  to  go  into 
the  negotiation  for  the  purchase  of  the  ship  ? 

Answer.  Something  was  said  about  the  Van  Wyck  committee  being 
in  session  at  the  time. 

Question.  What  was  said  about  the  Van  Wyck  committee  in  that 
connexion  ? 

Answer.  He  declined  to  buy  upon  that  account  as  he  would  proba- 
bly be  before  that  committee.  This  was  a  conversation  made  in  Mr. 
De  Mier's  office,  but  I  would  not  undertake  to  say  who  made  the  state- 
ment. 

Question.  You  said  Sedgwick  went  to  Washington.    Do  you  mean 
to  say  that  he  went  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  a  sale  of  the  ship  ? 
Answer.  I  understand  that  he  went  upon  that  business. 
Question.  More  than  once? 

Answer.  I  cannot  undertake  to  say  whether  he  went  more  than 
once. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  understand  that  he  went  to  Wash- 
ington on  that  business? 

Answer.  From  Mr.  Burt  and  Mr.  De  Mier. 

Question.  Did  you  hear  it  from  Mr.  Sedgwick? 

Answer.  I  think  Sedgwick  was  present  at  one  time,  and  said  he 
would  go  to  Washington  if  nothing  was  done  with  Morgari,  or  some- 
thing to  that  effect. 

Question.  Go  to  Washington  for  what? 

Answer.  For  the  purpose  of  selling  the  ship. 

Question.  Do  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  heard  Sedgwick  say 
that? 

Answer.  I  think  Sedgwick  was  present  when  the  remark  was 
made,  either  by  Burt  or  by  himself. 

Question.  What  was  the  remark  you  heard  made,  either  by  him  or 
in  his  presence  ? 

Answer.  That  they  would  go  to  Washington  and  effect  a  sale  of 
this  ship.  My  impression  is  that  either  one  or  both  of  them  were 
there  upon  two  occasions. 

Question.  Was  anything  said  in  Sedgwick's  presence  at  any  time 
about  his  official  position  giving  him  an  advantage? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  there  was  in  his  presence.  Mr.  Burt 
spoke  of  that  upon  several  occasions. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  that  Sedgwick  had 
any  interest,  either  direct  or  remote,  in  the  sale  of  this  ship  ;  or  did  he 
act  as  any  citizen  might  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  government 
to  get  a  good  ship  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  he  had  one  dollar  of  interest.  If  he 
had  not  I  should  think  it  was  a  very  strong  friendship  upon  the  part 
of  Sedgwick  for  Burt — stronger  than  for  the  government. 

Question.  What  are  the  relations  of  Sedgwick  and  Burt  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  They  are  both  strangers  to  me.  Mr. 
Burt  spoke  of  him  as  being  his  intimate  and  personal  friend,  and  that 
he  (Sedgwick)  should  do  anything  reasonable  he  should  ask  him  to  do. 

Question.  Burt  put  it  upon  the  ground  that  Sedgwick  was  his 
friend,  and  would  do  anything  reasonable? 


TESTIMONY. 


167 


Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  at  the  same  time,  when  they  were  together, 
Mr.  Sedgwick  or  Mr.  Burt  would  use  the  plural  "we."  I  do  not 
know  that  either  of  these  gentlemen  ever  received  a  dollar. 

Question.  The  statement  you  have  spoken  of,  as  I  understand, 
shows  that  somebody  received  $10,000  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  the  statement  shows  that. 

Question.  Does  it  not  show  who  received  it  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say,  as  I  have  not  looked  at  it  for  several  months. 
Question.  Will  you  furnish  the  committee  with  a  copy  of  that 
statement  ? 

Answer.  I  will. 

Question.  And  make  it  a  part  of  your  evidence  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Who  is  Mr.  Burt  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say. 

Question.  Where  does  he  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  this  city,  I  think. 

Question.  What  is  his  given  name  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Is  it  not  Addison  M.? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  You  understand  him  to  be  a  lawyer  of  this  city  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  understand  that  he  had  been  connected 
with  ship-building,  or  has  been  an  owner  of  ships  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  aware  that  he  knows  anything  about  ships,  or 
that  he  ever  owned  any. 

Question.  Then  the  only  possible  connexion  of  these  two  gentle- 
men with  this  transaction  was  to  secure  the  sale  of  this  vessel  to  the 
government  ? 

Answer.  That  was  what  they  were  employed  for,  as  I  understand. 
Whether  Mr.  De  Mier  employed  one  or  both  of  them  I  cannot  say. 

Question.  When  you  saw  either  of  those  gentlemen  at  the  office  of 
Mr.  De  Mier,  was  the  other  generally  present  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  never  met  Sedgwick  there  but  twice.  I  met 
Burt  there  perhaps  six  or  eight  times. 

Question.  When  did  you  first  understand  that  Sedgwick  was  a 
member  of  Congress,  and  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  upon  the  second  interview  I  had  with 
Burt,  and  I  think  that  interview  was  on  the  same  day  that  Sedgwick 
was  at  Mr.  De  Mier's  office. 

Question.  Upon  what  did  Burt  seem  to  rely  for  the  sale  of  that 
vessel  ?  Was  it  upon  the  ground  of  his  relations  to  the  administra- 
tion and  the  Navy  Department  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  judged  from  his  conversation  that  he  relied 
wholly  upon  Mr.  Sedgwick,  for  when  there  were  some  delays,  and 
Mr.  Sedgwick  was  out  of  town,  Burt  seemed  to  be  quite  uneasy 
about  it. 

Question.  How  long  was  this  matter  pending  before  it  was  finally 
consummated  ? 

Answer.  It  was  some  weeks  before  the  money  was  coming. 


168 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  But  I  mean  from  the  time  the  negotiation  was  entered 
upon  until  the  time  it  was  consummated. 
Answer.  I  should  think  two  or  three  weeks. 

Question.  Do  you  understand  that  Burt  and  Sedgwick  are  intimate 
personal  friends  ? 

Answer.  I  understood  from  Mr.  Burt  that  they  were  very  strong 
personal  friends. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  that  Burt  was  speculating  upon  the 
personal  friendship  of  Sedgwick  in  order  to  effect  a  sale  of  this  vessel 
and  put  the  amount  of  money  into  his  own  pockets? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  can  only  judge  from  the  manifest 
interest. 

Question.  Could  not  that  interest  he  accounted  for  from  the  per- 
sonal friendship  which  existed  between  them  ? 

Answer.  It  might  be.  I  have  myself  done  more  than  that  for  a 
friend,  in  the  way  of  spending  time,  and  putting  myself  out,  &o.  Mr. 
Burt  states  in  his  testimony  before  this  committee  that  he  kept  all 
that  money  himself.  All  he  pretended  to  charge  us,  I  understand, 
was  two  and  a  half  per  cent.;  so  I  think  we  must  be  entitled  to  a 
return  commission  of  two  and  a  half  per  cent. 

The  witness  was  recalled  after  the  examination  of  Mr.  De  Mier,  the 
next  witness,  and  testified  as  follows : 

Question.  You  say  you  saw  one  letter  of  Sedgwick? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Where  did  you  see  it? 

Answer.  In  Mr.  De  Mier's  office.  It  was  in  relation  to  the  sale  of 
the  ship,  but  the  substance  of  it  I  cannot  now  state,  as  it  has  been  so 
long  since  I  saw  it. 

Question.  You  have  heard  the  statement  of  Mr.  De  Mier,  that  no 
letter  from  Sedgwick  was  addressed  to  him  ? 

Answer.  I  have. 

Question.  You  still  insist  that  you  saw  a  letter  in  De  Mier's  office, 
written  by  Sedgwick,  either  to  Mr.  De  Mier  or  to  Burt? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  purporting  to  be  written  by  him.  I  do  not 
know  his  handwriting,  of  course. 


New  York,  April  21,  1862. 

Juan  C.  De  Mier  sworn : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 
Answer.  I  reside  in  this  city. 
Question.  What  is  your  business? 
Answer.  I  am  in  the  commission  business. 

Question.  Have  you  any  interest  in  any  vessels  which  have  been 
sold  to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  had  an  interest  in  the  Santiago  de  Cuba. 

Question.  Relate  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  sale  of  that 
vessel  to  the  government. 

Answer.  We  sold  the  vessel  to  the  government  through  A.  M. 
Burt,  as  agent. 


TESTIMONY. 


169 


Question.  Did  you  have  any  negotiation  with  any  other  gentleman? 

Answer.  We  did  not  employ  any  other  gentleman  than  Mr.  Burt, 
but  Mr.  Burt  took  the  first  day  there  or  the  second  (I  will  not  en- 
deavor to  say  which)  Mr.  Sedgwick,  a  member  of  Congress.  Mr.  Burt 
did  not  state  in  the  transaction  that  he  was  going  to  make  the  nego- 
tiation with  Mr.  Sedgwick. 

Question.  You  think  that  the  second  time  Burt  came  there  he 
brought  Sedgwick  with  him? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  anything  said  between  you  and  Burt  about  Mr. 
Sedgwick  before  he  came  there? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  Mr.  Sedgwick  has  been  in  my  office  once,  and 
no  more,  during  all  this  transaction. 

Question.  Had  he  been  in  your  office  before  this? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  When  he  came  there,  by  whom  was  he  introduced? 

Answer,  He  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Burt. 

Question.  Had  Sedgwick  any  business  in  your  office? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  He  was  introduced  to  me  with  other  gentlemen. 
Mr.  Barault,  Mr.  Boardman,  the  captain  of  the  vessel,  and  myself, 
were  present. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  any  conversation  with  Sedgwick? 

Answer.  We  had  a  conversation  about  the  price  of  the  vessel. 
We  wanted  $200,000  net. 

Question.  Wha^  was  the  conversation  with  Sedgwick? 

Answer.  I  had  no  conversation  with  Sedgwick  himself.  He  lis- 
tened to  us.    I  do  not  believe  he  opened  his  lips  in  the  office. 

Question.  What  occasion  had  he  to  be  in  your  office  without 
opening  his  lips  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Burt  spoke  all  the  time. 

Question.  Did  Burt  say  anything  to  you  in  reference  to  Sedgwick? 

Answer.  Mr.  Burt  spoke,  after  Mr.  Sedgwick  left,  of  his  influence 
in  Washington. 

Question.  What  did  he  say  about  Sedgwick's  influence? 

Answer.  He  said  Mr.  Sedgwick  was  a  particular  friend  of  his,  and 
that  he  would  be  able  to  make  a  sale  of  the  vessel  better  than  any- 
body else  in  New  York. 

Question.  Did  he  say  in  what  manner  Mr.  Sedgwick  could  do  it 
better  than  anybody  else  ? 

Answer.  He  said  only  that  his  position  and  his  friends  enabled 
him  to  get  a  sale  effected. 

Question.  Did  he  explain  that  position? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  did  not.  He  only  said  he  was  a  member  of 
Congress.  I  did  not  know  that  before.  When  Mr.  Sedgwick  was  at 
our  office  I  did  not  know  who  he  was. 

Question.  Mr.  Sedgwick  did  not  stay  as  long  as  Burt? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  did  he  stay? 

Answer.  He  may  have  been  there  ten  or  fifteen  minutes,  perhaps 
half  an  hour. 

Question.  Without  saying  a  word  while  there? 


170 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Listening  to  a  conversation  between  you  and  Burt  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir,  and  the  other  gentlemen. 

Question.  Was  that  conversation  about  anything  else  except  the 
sale  of  the  vessel  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  anything  said  about  a  commission  on  the  sale 
while  Sedgwick  was  there? 

Answer.  After  we  had  spoken  of  the  price  of  the  vessel,  (we  wanted 
to  get  §200,000  net,  and  we  were  making  strong  efforts  to  get  it,) 
finding  we  could  not  succeed  in  getting  our  price,  we  agreed  that  we 
would  take  $200,000,  and  give  Burt  five  per  cent,  commission  upon 
the  sale,  to  be  divided,  we  understood,  with  Mr.  Morgan. 

Question.  How — equally? 

Answer,  I  supposed  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  to  each. 
Question.  Was  anything  said  about  anybody  going  to  Washington  ? 
Answer.  Mr.  Burt  engaged  himself  to  go  to  Washington  and  try 
to  negotiate  this  transaction. 

Question.  Did  he  go  to  Washington? 

Answer.  He  did.  I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Sedgwick  went  with 
him  or  not. 

Question.  Did  you  see  any  letter  from  Mr.  Sedgwick? 
Answer.  I  had  two  or  three  notes  from  the  Assistant  Secretary  of 
the  Navy,  but  no  letter  from  Mr.  Sedgwick. 
Question.  Have  you  those  notes  now? 

Answer.  I  believe  they  were  telegraphic  despatches.  I  may  have 
one  or  two.  They  were  from  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Mr. 
Fox. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  letters  ? 
Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  Did  you  not  see  any  letter  from  Mr.  Sedgwick? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  What  did  Fox  say  in  his  telegraphic  despatches  ? 

Answer.  He  asked,  before  the  sale  of  the  vessel  was  effected, 
whether  she  had  some  requirements  which  the  department  wanted  a 
vessel  to  have,  adapted  to  the  purposes  of  war.  In  another  despatch 
he  inquired  whether  I  was  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ;  how  this 
property  was  held ;  who  where  the  owners  of  the  vessel;  and  whether 
we  were  loyal  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Question.  Those  despatches  were  addressed  to  you? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  as  president  of  the  company. 

Question.  You  say  Fox  telegraphed  to  you  to  know  whether  you 
were  a  loyal  citizen  or  not? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Before  he  would  effect  a  sale  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Where  was  Burt  when  these  telegraphic  despatches 
were  received  ? 

Answer.  He  was  in  New  York. 

Question.  Was  any  mention  made  of  Sedgwick  in  any  of  those 
despatches  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


171 


Answer.  No,  sir  ;  never. 

Question.  You  never  knew  of  Sedgwick  going  to  Washington  upon 
this  business  ? 

Answer.  He  may  have  gone. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  of  his  going? 

Answer.  I  could  not  swear  that  he  went  for  that  purpose. 

Question.  Did  you  go  to  Morgan's  office  with  Sedgwick? 

Answer.  I  went  there  with  Boardnian  and  the  captain  of  the  vessel. 

Question.  Was  Sedgwick  there? 

Answer.  No-,  sir. 

Question.  Was  he  there  during  the  time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  understood  that  Sedgwick  went  there  after- 
wards with  Boardman,  the  captain,  and  Burt.  I  saw  Morgan  only 
half  a  minute  at  that  time.    He  was  very  busy. 

Question.  Why  was  Morgan  to  have  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  if 
you  effected  a  sale  with  the  Navy  Department  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  Morgan  do  anything? 

Answer.  We  understood  we  could  not  effect  a  sale  unless  we  paid 
two  and  a  half  per  cent,  to  Morgan. 

Question.  Through  whom  did  you  effect  a  sale? — through  what 
government  agent? 

Answer.  Through  Mr.  Morgan. 

Question.  Morgan  agreed  to  take  the  vessel? 

Answer.  Morgan  gave  us  the  assurance  that  the  vessel  was  bought. 
Question.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  with  Morgan  or  Fox  that 
it  was  done? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say,  indeed. 
Question.  Did  you  pay  the  $10,000? 
Answer.  I  did. 
Question.  To  whom? 
Answer.  To  Burt. 
Question.  How  long  ago? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  exactly  the  day.    It  was  very  likely  the 
same  day  I  received  the  money  from  the  government. 
Question.  About  how  long  ago  ? 

Answer.  It  was  some  time  ago.  It  was  very  soon  after  the  sale  of 
the  vessel. 

Question.  Can  you  tell  about  when  that  was? 
Answer.  It  was  immediately  after  the  receipt  of  the  money. 
Question.  Have  you  paid  any  other  money  for  effecting  that  sale? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Has  there  been  any  other  charge  made  against  the  com- 
pany by  any  one  ? 

Answer.  One  of  the  stockholders  (Barault)  had  charged  the  company 
eight  or  nine  thousand  dollars  (I  do  not  know  exactly  how  much)  for 
his  own  services  during  all  the  time  the  steamer  had  been  running, 
and  for  compensation  for  loss  of  commissions  as  agent  in  Cuba. 

Question.  Did  you  make  any  charge  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  much? 


172 


TESTIMONY. 


Answer.  Two  and  a  half  per  cent. 

Question.  For  what? 

Answer.  For  the  sale  of  the  vessel. 

Question.  When  Sedgwick  came  to  your  office  with  Burt,  was  there 
any  statement  made  hy  Burt  why  Sedgwick  came  with  him  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Sedgwick  ask  any  questions  ? 
Answer.  He  did  not. 
Question.  Did  he  make  any  remarks? 
Answer.  He  did  not. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  all  the  time  he  was  there  he 
did  not  open  his  mouth  ? 
Answer.  He  did  not. 
Question.  Who  was  present? 

Answer.  Mr.  Boardman,  Barault,  the  captain  of  the  steamer,  and 
myself. 

Question.  Was  it  at  that  time  that  it  was  agreed  that  Burt  should 
have  two  and  a  half  per  cent.,  and  that  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  should 
be  paid  to  Morgan  ? 

Answer.  We  did  not  agree  to  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  being  paid 
to  Morgan  ;  we  only  agreed  to  pay  five  per  cent,  to  Burt.  How  much 
one  was  to  have  and  how  much  the  other  we  did  not  know.  He  did 
not  say  how  much  he  was  to  pay  Morgan. 

Question.  That  is,  Burt  did  not? 

Answer.  He  (Burt)  did  not.  We  knew  that  no  sale  had  been  made 
in  New  York  without  paying  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  to  Morgan. 

Question.  Did  Morgan  say  anything  to  you  about  two  and  a  half 
per  ceut  ? 

Answer.  Never. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  he  has  got  it  or  not? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  Burt  to-day? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Question.  At  what  time? 
Answer.  About  one  o'clock. 
Question.  Before  you  were  summoned? 
Answer.  It  was  when  I  was  summoned. 
Question.  Have  you  seen  him  since  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  him  about  this 
matter  ? 

Answer.  No  sir. 

Question.  What  was  Burt  doing  there  ? 

Answer.  He  had  some  brokerage  business  with  me. 

Question.  What  was  it? 

Answer.  A  transaction  in  reference  to  some  notes. 
Question.  He  was  in  your  office  when  you  were  summoned  ? 
Answer.  Your  summons  found  me  at  one  o'clock,  and  I  was 
summoned  right  away. 

Question.  Sir.  Burt  was  there  at  the  time? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


TESTIMONY. 


173 


Question.  Have  you  seen  him  since  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  been  in  his  office  since  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  was  in  mine. 
Question.  Since  you  were  summoned? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  He  was  in  my  office  when  the  summons  arrived 
there. 

Question.  How  long  did  he  stay  ? 
Answer.  Ten  minutes. 

Question.  Did  you  and  he  have  any  conversation  about  this  matter  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir.    I  gave  him  a  check  for  $9,000  for  some  notes 
discounted. 

Question.  Was  the  sale  of  this  vessel  the  first  business  transaction 
between  you  and  Burt  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  had  transactions  with  him  before,  and  have 
had  a  good  many  since. 

Question.  How  long  has  Burt  lived  in  this  city  ? 

Answer.  He  has  resided  in  Richmond  as  secretary  of  a  car  spring 
company  there.  I  am  not  sure  that  it  is  a  car  spring  company,  but 
it  is  something  of  that  kind.  After  the  civil  war  broke  out  he  left 
that  place,  and  he  has  been  here  in  business. 

Question.  Is  this  his  first  residence  in  this  city? 

Answer.  His  wife  lives  here,  and  has  for  many  years,  I  believe. 

Question.  Had  you,  or  any  member  of  your  company,  any  acquaint- 
ance with  Sedgwick  before  that  transaction  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Can  you  account  in  any  way  for  his  presence  at  your 
office  at  the  time  when  you  were  negotiating  for  tbe  sale  of  the  San- 
tiago de  Cuba? 

Answer.  I  account  for  it  in  this  way  :  Burt  wished  to  assure  us  that 
he  was  able  to  make  a  sale  ;  we  had  been  trying  for  two  or  three 
months  to  effect  a  sale  through  Morgan,  before  this  transaction,  and 
we  could  not  succeed  ;  and  when  this  Burt  came  along  he  said  he 
could  effect  a  sale,  and  to  show  that  he  could,  he  brought  Sedgwick 
to  the  office  to  show  that  he  had  some  friend  by  whom  he  would  be 
able  to  do  it. 

Question.  That  was  the  object  then  which  induced  him  to  bring 
Sedgwick  with  him  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  did  you  learn,  and  when  did  you  first  learn,  that 
Sedgwick  was  a  member  of  Congress,  and  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Naval  Affairs  ? 

Answer.  It  was  after  Sedgwick  left  the  room. 

Question.  On  the  same  occasion  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Burt  assure  you  in  Sedgwick's  presence  that  he 
would  aid  you  in  the  sale  ? 

Answer.  He  said  he  could  count  upon  Mr.  Sedgwick  as  a  personal 
friend. 


174 


TESTIMONY. 


Washington,  May  16,  1862. 

Addison  M.  Burt  sworn  : 

Question.  When  you  were  before  this  committee  on  the  5th  day  of 
October,  1861,  you  mentioned  your  connexion  with  the  sale  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  steamer  Santiago  de  Cuba.  Please  state  how  long 
before  the  vessel  was  sold  to  the  government  you  became  connected 
with  the  agency  for  her  sale. 

Answer.  Some  time  in  August,  I  think.  I  do  not  remember  ex- 
actly, but  my  best  recollection  is  that  it  was  not  far  from  the  tenth 
or  fifteenth  of  August,  when  I  entered  upon  the  matter. 

Question.  Was  the  vessel  a  new  one? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  she  had  made  only  one  voyage  to  Cuba  and 
back. 

Question.  To  whom  did  you  first  propose  to  sell  the  vessel  to  the 
government  ? 

Answer.  To  Mr.  Pook,  naval  constructor  at  New  York. 

Question.  Who  else  did  you  apply  to  with  a  view  to  a  sale  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Morgan.  When  I  called  upon  Pook  the  second  or 
third  time,  I  learned  from  him  that  Mr.  Morgan  had  the  purchasing 
of  vessels. 

Question.  What  induced  you  to  call  upon  him  ? 

Answer.  I  found  Mr.  Pook,  the  second  or  third  time  I  saw  him,  in 
Mr.  Morgan's  office,  but  I  did  not  know  he  was  there  until  I  went 
there. 

Question.  You  did  not  meet  Pook  by  any  previous  understanding  ? 

Answer.  My  first  application  to  Pook  was  at  his  lodgings.  He 
then  told  me  to  make  a  memorandum,  giving  a  description  of  the 
vessel,  and  leave  it  at  his  place,  No.  54,  I  think  it  was,  Exchange 
Place.  I  did  so,  and  the  next  day  left  the  memorandum  on  his  desk 
in  the  office,  nobody  being  in  but  a  boy.  The  next  day  I  went  to 
the  office  and  found  him  there.  He  said  he  had  received  my  memo- 
randum, but  he  turned  me  over  to  Mr.  Morgan,  whom  I  saw  then  for 
the  first  time  ;  and  then  for  the  first  time,  also,  I  learned  that  he  had 
the  purchasing  of  vessels.  From  that  time  I  conducted  my  negotia- 
tions with  him.  I  saw  him  several  times  for  a  space,  I  should  say, 
of -a  week  or  more.  While  this  was  going  on,  my  brother  and  Mr. 
Sedgwick,  a  member  of  Congress,  called  at  my  house  to  make  a 
friendly  visit.  They  did  not  know  anything  of  what  I  was  about,  but 
1  told  them  in  the  course  of  our  conversation.  My  brother  remarked 
that  Mr.  Sedgwick  was  chairman  of  the  naval  committee  of  the 
House — which  was  news  to  me,  as  I  did  not  know  it  before — and  that 
Mr.  Sedgwick  could  probably  assist  me  in  selling  the  vessel.  Mr. 
Sedgwick  said  if  the  vessel  was  such  a  vessel  as  the  government 
wanted,  and  it  could  be  had  for  a  fair  price,  very  likely  the  govern- 
ment would  buy  her,  and  that  he  would  do  what  he  could  to  assist  me 
consistently  with  propriety,  or  something  of  that  kind.  The  idea  was 
that  if  the  government  wanted  the  vessel  and  she  could  be  had  for  a 
fair  price,  he  would  help  me  all  he  could.  That  was  the  first  time  I 
saw  Mr.  Sedgwick  about  it,  and  the  first  time  he  ever  heard  anything 
about  it.    He  wrote,  at  my  request,  a  letter  to  the  Navy  Department, 


TESTIMONY. 


175 


giving  substantially  the  same  description  of  the  vessel  I  had  given  to 
Mr.  Pook,  and  saying  that  if  such  a  vessel  was  wanted  by  the  govern- 
ment, I  was  authorized  to  sell  her.  I  think  that  was  about  the  sub- 
stance of  the  letter.  I  think,  after  that,  I  had  some  correspondence 
with  the  Navy  Department  myself.  From  that  time  until  the  nego- 
tiation was  closed  I  had  correspondence  with  the  Navy  Department, 
and  negotiation  with  Mr.  Morgan,  both  ;  and  I  am  not  able  to  say 
with  certainty  which  of  them  bought  the  vessel,  or  whether  either  of 
them  had  any  exclusive  part  in  it.  My  impression,  however,  is  that 
the  transaction  was  with  the  Navy  Department  directly,  and  Mr. 
Morgan  evidently  regarded  it  so,  because  he  voluntarily  told  me  he 
did  not  demand  any  commission  ;  and  I  therefore  concluded  that  he 
did  not  consider  himself  a  purchaser  of  the  vessel,  for  in  every  case,  so 
far  as  I  could  learn,  he  had  demanded  a  commission  where  he  had 
purchased  a  vessel.  I  am  therefore  of  opinion  that  I  sold  the  vessel 
to  the  Navy  Department,  and  not  to  Mr.  Morgan. 

Question.  In  the  memorandum  you  furnished  to  Mr.  Pook  you  des- 
cribed the  vessel  and  indicated  the  price,  did  you  ?  and  if  so,  what 
price  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  mentioned  the  price  in  that 
memorandum.    I  think  I  did  not. 

Question.  In  your  conversations  with  Pook,  what  price  did  you  put 
upon  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  I  never  put  a  price  upon  it  to  Pook.  I  did  with  Morgan. 
Question.  What  price? 

Answer.  I  first  fixed  the  price  to  Morgan  at  $250,000. 
Question.  How  long  after  your  first  interview  with  Morgan  were 
your  negotiations  confined  to  him  ? 
Answer.  I  should  say  five  or  six  days. 

Question.  What  was  the  lowest  price  at  which  you  offered  the 
vessel  to  Morgan  while  negotiating  with  him  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  naming  any  figure  lower  than  $250,000; 
but  I  did  tell  him  she  could  probably  be  had  for  less  if  the  government 
wanted  her. 

Question.  Did  he  mention  any  price  the  government  would  be  wil- 
ling to  pay  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Had  the  vessel  been  examined  by  Pook,  or  any  other 
officer  of  the  navy,  prior  to  the  termination  of  your  negotiation  with 
Mr.  Morgan  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  between  the  commencement  and  termination 
of  my  negotiation  with  him.  But  she  had  been  examined  by  Delano, 
naval  constructor  at  the  navy  yard  in  Brooklyn,  and  by  the  chief  en- 
gineer, and  their  certificate  was  on  file  in  the  Navy  Department  at  that 
time. 

Question.  Had  that  examination  been  had  in  view  of  this  negotia- 
tion ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  of  some  previous  one. 

Question.  Who  had,  before  that  time,  been  proposing  to  sell  the 
vessel  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.    It  must  have  been  the  owners. 


176 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  You  were  not,  then,  the  first  person  engaged  in  the  nego- 
tiation for  the  sale  of  that  vessel  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  able  to  answer  that  question.  I  was  the  first 
one  I  know  of. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  that  other  persons  had  been  seeking 
the  sale  of  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  I  understood  from  Mr.  De  Mier,  the  president  of  the  com- 
pany, that  he,  or  somebody  else,  had  had  that  examination  made. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  at  what  price  he,  or  whoever  else 
was  acting  for  him,  had  offered  the  vessel  to  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  What  price  did  Mr.  Morgan  mention  himself  as  the  sum 
he  was  willing  to  pay  for  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  He  never  mentioned  any  sum.  He  never  made  me  an 
offer. 

Question.  What  was  the  reason  you  did  not  follow  up  and  consum- 
mate the  bargain  with  Morgan  himself? 

Answer.  Because,  after  giving  me  some  encouragement,  he  finally 
checked  me  off  because  I  was  not  the  owner  of  the  vessel.  He  finally 
told  me  he  would  only  deal  with  owners,  and  I  understood  that  to 
mean  that  he  would  not  forego  his  commission  or  divide  it  with  me. 

Question.  Did  he  give  you  any  other  reason  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not  give  me  that  reason  at  all.  He  simply  said 
he  dealt  only  with  owners.    I,  however,  understood  what  that  meant. 

Question.  Is  your  recollection  clear  that  Morgan  himself  never 
mentioned  any  sum  he  was  willing  to  pay  for  her? 

Answer.  He  did  not  name  any  sum  to  me,  I  am  certain. 

Question.  Did  he  to  De  Mier  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  you  learn  from  De  Mier,  or  anybody  else,  that  Mor- 
gan did  designate  any  sum  he  was  willing  to  pay  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  at  any  time  from  Morgan  that 
another  reason  for  not  consummating  that  trade  was  that  his  mcde  of 
purchasing  was  the  subject  of  some  scrutiny,  and  that  he  did  not  care 
to  be  engaged  in  the  purchase  of  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  never  told  me  anything  of  that  sort.  After 
the  bargain  was  closed  he  told  me  he  would  not  have  paid  that  price 
for  the  vessel,  because  he  thought  he  could  have  got  her  for  less.  I 
replied  that  he  could  not  have  got  her  for  less;  that  he  was  mistaken 
about  that. 

Question.  How  long  was  it  after  Morgan  told  you  he  would  deal 
only  with  owners  that  you  saw  Sedgwick  ? 

Answer.  Perhaps  four  or  five  days;  I  do  not  remember  exactly. 
Question.  'Where  does  your  brother  reside  ? 
Answer.  In  Syracuse. 

Question.  Where  was  Sedgwick's  residence? 

Answer.  At  Syracuse.  He  and  my  brother  were  in  New  York,  and 
came  to  see  me  in  the  evening.  I  did  not  expect  them,  and  they  took 
me  quite  by  surprise. 

Question.  You  had  a  previous  acquaintance  with  Sedgwick  ? 


TESTIMONY. 


177 


Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  known  him  for  many  years,  and  was  very 
intimate  with  him,  and  am  still.  We  were  brought  up  in  the  same 
county — my  brother  also. 

Question.  State  any  of  the  reasons  which  you  gave  to  the  owners 
of  this  vessel,  or  to  the  president  of  the  company  owning  her,  of  your 
ability  to  make  a  sale  of  the  vessel  to  the  government,  and  of  the 
agencies  you  might  fairly  make  use  of  to  accomplish  that  purpose. 

Answer.  I  told  them  in  the  beginning  that  I  was  acquainted  with, 
some  officer  who  had  the  purchasing  of  vessels — alluding  to  Mr.  Pook. 
I  did  not  mention  his  name.  I  began  my  negotiation  upon  the 
strength  of  that,  and  up  to  the  time  when  Mr.  Sedgwick  called  at  my 
house  with  my  brother  I  do  not  think  I  had  anybody  else  in  view. 
After  I  got  Mr.  Sedgwick  to  write  me  this  letter  to  the  department, 
and  got  an  answer  to  it,  I  told  the  owners  of  the  vessel  what  I  had 
done  ;  that  I  had  got  such  a  letter  written  ;  that  we  had  got  an  answer 
to  it ;  that  we  had  opened  a  negotiation  with  the  department  directly, 
and  that  I  had  no  doubt  I  could  sell  the  vessel  to  the  government  if 
we  could  satisfy  them  that  she  was  a  good  vessel  and  the  pricl  rea- 
sonable. 

Question.  What  was  the  substance  of  the  answer  you  received  from 
the  department  ? 

Answer.  It  was  an  order  to  Mr.  Pook  or  to  Mr.  Morgan,  I  forget 
which,  to  examine  the  vessel  and  report  to  the  department.  That 
was  about  all  there  was  in  it.  I  regarded  that  as  an  expression  of  their 
willingness  to  buy  the  vessel,  if  she  was  a  suitable  one  and  cheap 
enough.  I  got  a  carriage  and  drove  Mr.  Pook  up  to  the  vessel.  He 
examined  her  and  made  a  report  to  the  department,  and,  as  I  said  be- 
fore, there  was  considerable  negotiation  with  Morgan,  and  correspond- 
ence with  the  department,  which  extended  over  a  period  of  three  or 
four  weeks. 

Question.  Did  the  report  of  Pook  indicate  what  was  the  value  of 
the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  He  simply  reported  her  build,  her  capacity,  &c. 
I  also  got  a  copy  of  the  previous  report  made  by  Delano  and  the  en- 
gineer of  the  navy  yard. 

Question.  Had  not  that  been  filed  in  the  Navy  Department? 

Answer.  It  had  been,  and  the  Assistant  Secretary  got  it  out  and  ex- 
amined it.  I  do  not  remember  the  particulars  of  the  matter,  as  it  was 
as  long  ago  as  last  August  or  September,  but  the  result  of  it  was  that 
at  the  end  of  three  or  four  weeks'  negotiation*  the  vessel  was  bought 
for  8200,000  and  the  money  paid.  My  impression  was,  at  the  time  of 
the  sale,  that  the  Navy  Department  bought  her. 

Question.  When  did  Mr.  Sedgwick  first  accompany  you  to  the  office 
of  the  gentleman  interested  in  the  sale  of  the  vessel? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.  How  long  was  it  after  this  fi?st  interview  with  him  at 
your  own  house,  and  after  he  wrote  that  letter  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember,  but  my  impression  is  that  it  was  when 
he  was  in  New  York  the  next  time  after  that — a  week  or  ten  days 
afterwards. 

Part  iii  12 


178 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  What  was  his  object  and  yours  in  making  that  visit,  and 
who  were  present? 

Answer.  His  object  was  to  accommodate  me.  My  object  in  taking 
him  there  was  this  :  the  owners  of  the  vessel  had  never  believed  that 
I  could  effect  a  sale.  They  told  me  repeatedly  it  never  could  be  done 
except  through  Mr.  Morgan,  and  that  I  must  make  terms  with  him, 
or  all  my  labor  would  be  in  vain,  as  no  vessel  never  had  been  sold  ex- 
cept through  Morgan,  and  none  ever  would  be.  And  more  than  that, 
they  had  an  offer  irom  the  War  Department  to  charter  the  vessel  at 
$900  a  day,  and  most  of  the  owners  were  disposed  to  accept,  and  I  was 
very  much  afraid  I  should  lose  the  opportunity  to  sell  the  vessel,  and 
thereby  lose  my  commissions,  which  I  was  very  anxious  to  secure. 
The  captain  of  the  vessel  also,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Cheeseman,  had 
previously  said  to  me  that  if  the  vessel  was  sold  he  would  be  sold  out 
of  place,  and  he  wished  me  to  get  him  a  berth  upon  the  ship  from 
the  Navy  Department — that  I  should  get  him  appointed  as  other 
merchant  captains  had  been  appointed  to  go  to  sea  in  government 
vessels.  And  I  had  previously  spoken  to  Sedgwick  about  that,  recom- 
mending the  captain  as  a  suitable  man,  and  I  got  Sedgwick  to  go  with 
me  to  De  Mier's  counting-house,  with  the  double  purpose  of  introduc- 
ing Captain  Cheeseman  to  him,  and  to  satisfy  Mr.  De  Mier  and  the 
other  owners  that  I  probably  had  the  means  of  selling  the  ship  if  they 
would  give  me  time.    That  was  my  motive. 

Question.  You  intended  to  convey  the  idea  to  them,  and  properly 
too,  that  you  expected  to  effect  a  sale  through  the  instrumentality  of 
Sedgwick  r 

Answer.  Not  exclusively  ;  but  that  I  had  such  a  friend  as  would  se- 
cure me  the  ear  of  the  department,  so  far  as  necessary  to  make  them 
understand  our  merits,  and  to  give  the  necessary  attention  to  the  ship 
to  know  whether  she  was  such  a  ship  as  they  wanted  to  buy,  and  to 
buy  her  if  she  was  ? 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Sedgwick  go  with  you  to  the  same  counting- 
house  more  than  once  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  did  not  meet  Mr.  De  Mier  and  the  owners  of  the  ves- 
sel with  Sedgwick,  except  at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  Two  or  three  of  the  owners  of  the  vessels  were 
there  at  that  time.  I  did  not  go  by  appoiutment  to  meet  them.  Sedg- 
wick went  at  my  request.  He  only  staid  a  short  time,  and  did  not 
say  much.  He,  in  fact,  only  went  at  my  request  to  enable  me  to  get 
a  little  time,  as  they  were  about  to  give  up  the  idea  of  sale  and  accept 
the  charter.  They  said  the  charter  was  a  certainty,  and  the  sale  an 
uncertainty. 

Question.  Did  you  meet  Sedgwick  at  Morgan's  ? 
Answer.  Sedgwick  also  went  with  me- to  Morgan's. 
Question.  Was  that  before  or  after  the  visit  to  Mr.  De  Mier? 
Answer.  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.  In  that  visit  to  Morgan,  was  the  price  of  the  vessel  men- 
tioned ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was.  I  think  $200,000  was  mentioned  as  the 
price  at  which  the  vessel  would  be  sold. 


TESTIMONY. 


179 


Question.  What  reason  did  Morgan  then  give  for  not  negotiating 
the  purchase  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  he  gave  any. 

Question.  What  was  the  object  of  that  visit,  if  you  were  opening 
negotiations  directly  with  the  Navy  Department  ? 

Answer.  The  Navy  Department  referred  me  from  time  to  time  to 
Morgan  to  give  them  information  about  the  ship.  There  seemed  to 
be  some  little  cross-purposes  between  the  department  and  Morgan 
as  to  which  should  decide  the  matter  about  the  sale.  Morgan  did 
not  want  to  do  it,  and  the  Navy  Department  seemed  to  think,  as  he 
was  put  there  for  the  purpose  of  buying  vessels,  that  he  should  do  it. 

Question.  What  suggestion  did  Mr.  Sedgwick  make  upon  the  sub- 
ject when  he  was  with  you  at  Morgan's  office  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  said  anything  more  than  that 
if  she  was  a  suitable  vessel  lor  the  government  to  buy,  such  a  vessel 
as  the  government  wanted,  and  the  price  was  reasonable,  he  would 
like  to  have  them  buy  her  of  me. 

Question.  Mr.  Sedgwick  was  aware  that  you  were  not  the  owner 
of  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  He  was  aware  that  my  object  was  to  make  a  commission. 
He  knew  I  needed  it.  He  knew  my  business  in  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina  had  been  entirely  ruined  by  the  rebellion,  and  that  1  needed 
the  money. 

Question.  Did  you  come  to  Washington  city  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  More  than  once  ? 

Answer.  Only  once.  Mr.  Sedgwick  came  with  me  at  my  request, 
and  introduced  me  to  the  Navy  Department. 

Question.  Was  that  before  or  after  his  letter  was  written  ? 

Answer.  After  ;  for  his  letter  was  the  first  thing  he  did  in  the 
matter. 

Question.  How  long  was  it  after  the  letter  was  written  that  he 
came  here  with  you  ? 

Answer.  About  two  weeks. 

Question.  Was  the  trade  effected  at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  think  it  was  not  completed  for  ten  days  or 
two  weeks  after  that. 

Question.  Was  the  price  talked  of  and  agreed  upon  at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  It  was  talked  of,  but  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  agreed 
upon.  The  sum  of  $200,000  was  canvassed,  and  I  remember  of 
using  this  argument  to  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  that  Mr. 
Morgan  had  just  bought  the  Connecticut  for  $200,000,  and  she  was 
not  as  good  a  ship  as  the  Santiago  de  Cuba. 

Question.  Was  there  any  evidence  furnished  to  the  Navy  Depart- 
ment as  to  the  cost  of  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of.  I  got  a  certificate  from  Delano, 
the  naval  constructor  at  Brooklyn  navy  yard,  certifying,  among  other 
things,  that  the  vessel  was  worth,  in  his  opinion,  from  $190,000  to 
$200,000  ;  I  had  his  certificate  to  that  effect,  and  I  sent  it  or  brought 
it  to  Fox. 


180 


TESTIMONY. 


Question.  How  long  did  you  and  Sedgwick  remain  in  Washington 
upon  that  visit  ? 

Answer.  I  think  about  two  days. 

Question.  Did  you  visit  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  or  his  assistant 
more  than  once  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.    I  was  there  two  or  three  times. 

Question.  Alter  your  visit  to  Washington  city,  had  you  any  fur- 
ther correspondence  with  the  Navy  Department  until  they  notified 
you  that  they  had  purchased  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  Most  of  the  correspondence  was  conducted  by 
telegraph.  I  think  there  were  not  more  than  three  or  four  letters  in 
all. 

Question.  What  passed  between  you  and  the  government  after 
your  visit  here,  before  they  notified  you  that  they  would  take  the 
vessel  at  $200,000? 

Answer.  I  had  several  despatches  from  Mr.  Fox,  and  I  remember 
that  one  of  them  demanded  a  sworn  list  of  the  owners  of  the  vessel. 
It  was  directed  to  Mr.  De  Mier,  but  sent  to  my  address.  I  got  it  and 
showed  it  to  Mr.  De  Mier. 

Question.  It  was  a  simple  demand  for  a  sworn  list? 

Answer.  I  understood  it  to  be  an  inquiry  whether  any  of  the  own- 
ers were  secessionists.  I  had  a  list  made  out,  and  appended  to  it 
was  an  affidavit  which  Mr.  De  Mier  swore  to,  that  the  owners  were 
all  loyal  citizens,  and  that  no  secessionist  or  secession  sympathizer 
had  any  interest  in  the  vessel. 

Question.  What  other  despatch  did  you  have  from  Fox  ? 

Answer.  Another  was  an  inquiry  whether  the  diagonal  iron  bra- 
cings of  the  ship  came  up  above  the  main  deck;  because  if  it  did 
she  could  not  be  well  pierced  for  guns,  for  cutting  them  away  would 
weaken  the  vessel. 

Question.  You  answered  that  inquiry  in  the  negative,  did  you  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  any  other  despatch  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Did  the  department  refer  you  at  all  to  Morgan  to  fix 
upon  the  price  ;  and  whether  they  did  or  not,  what  interviews  had 
you  with  him  after  the  time  you  and  Sedgwick  called  upon  him  ? 

Answer.  It  is  impossible  to  remember;  there  were  a  great  many  of 
them. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Morgan  himself  ever  accede  to  the  price  which 
you  asked,  ($200,000,)  or  recommend  the  government  to  make  the 
purchase  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  did  say  she  was  a  good  vessel,  and  suitable  for 
the  government  in  every  way.  He  told  me,  in  fact,  that  she  was  a 
first-rate  vessel,  and  the  only  reason  why  he  himself  would  not  con- 
clude the  purchase  was  that  he  thought  he  could  buy  her  for  less 
money — that  is,  he  did  not  mean  to  close  the  bargain  until  we  would 
reduce  the  price,  which  we  were  determined  not  to  do. 

Question.  Did  Sedgwick  write  to  any  person,  in  connexion  with 
the  vessel,  more  than  the  one  letter  you  have  alluded  to  ? 

Answer.  I  do  uot  think  he  did. 


TESTIMONY. 


181 


Question.  Did  you  make  more  than  one  visit  to  this  city  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  The  government  finally  notified  you  that  they  would 
take  the  vessel  at  $200,000? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  receive  that  notification  ? 

Answer.  I  think  from  the  Navy  Department  in  Washington. 

Question.  You  staled  in  your  former  testimony  the  commissions 
you  were  to  receive.    Please  repeat  your  statement  upon  that  point. 

Answer.  When  I  began  the  negotiation  there  was  a  simple  under- 
standing between  Mr.  De  Mier  and  myself  that  if  I  sold  the  vessel  I 
I  should  have  a  commission,  no  amount  being  specified.  After  the 
negotiation  had  gone  on  a  while,  and  perhaps  it  was  half  concluded, 
we  agreed  upon  the  rate.    It  was  finally  fixed  at  five  per  cent. 

Question.  Was  it  before  or  after  the  interview  between  you,  Sedg- 
wick, and  De  Mier,  that  the  commission  was  fixed? 

Answer.  It  must  have  been  afterwards,  because  the  negotiation  was 
half  finished  before  that,  I  think. 

Question.  To  whom  was  the  letter,  in  answer  to  the  one  from  Sedg- 
wick, addressed  by  the  Navy  Department? 

Answer.  I  cannot  remember  whether  it  was  to  me  or  to  Morgan.  I 
am  inclined  to  think  it  was  to  Morgan,  because  the  substance  of  it 
was  an  order  to  have  the  vessel  examined. 

Question.  Mr.  Morgan  volunteered  to  tell  you  he  would  not  take  a 
commission  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  receive  any  commission  in  that  transaction  ? 
Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge.    I  did  not  pay  him  any,  and  I  do 
not  believe  he  got  any. 

Question.  Your  commission  in  the  transaction  amounted  to  $10,000? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  any  person  divide  with  you  those  commissions,  or 
any  portion  of  them  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Question.  Who? 
Answer.  My  brother. 
Question.  An  equal  part  to  each  of  you  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  gave  my  brother  $5,000. 

Question.  When  did  your  brother  first  become  aware  of  the  fact 
that  you  were  negotiating  the  sale  of  that  vessel  ? 

Answer.  The  evening  he  and  Sedgwick  called  upon  me. 

Question.  Did  he  or  you  further  divide  any  portion  of  those  com- 
missions with  any  other  party  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not,  and  I  have  no  knowledge  that  he  did,  except 
that  he  told  me  afterwards  that  for  that  and  previous  services  rendered 
by  Sedgwick  he  had  paid  his  travelling  expenses — had  given  him  a 
hundred  dollars  to  pay  his  travelling  expenses,  and  some  previous  as- 
sistance Mr.  Sedgwick  had  rendered  him. 

Question.  In  connexion  with  what  business  ? 

Answer.  An  attempt  to  sell  some  boats  which  belonged  to  a  com- 
pany of  which  my  brother  was  president,  on  Lake  Ontario.  He 


182 


TESTIMONY. 


wanted  to  sell  them  to  the  government,  but  he  found,  on  application 
to  the  Navy  Department,  that  they  were  not  such  boats  as  the  depart- 
ment wanted,  and  he  relinquished  the  attempt. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  from  your  brother  that  any  other 
person  shared  with  him  any  part  of  that  $5,000  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  and  1  do  not  think  any  one  shared  it  with  him. 
The  money  transactions  of  myself  and  brother  are  mostly  upon  joint 
account. 

Question.  It  was  before  this  transaction  that  Sedgwick  was  con- 
nected with  the  negotiation  for  the  sale  of  the  lake  vessels 

Answer.  I  believe  so  ;  I  do  not  know  of  any  subsequent  transac- 
tions. 

Question.  What  part  did  your  brother  take  in  negotiating  the  sale 
of  this  vessel ? 

Answer.  Not  a  very  active  part.  He  went  with  me  once  or  twice 
to  see  Mr.  De  Mier,  and  gave  him  assurances  that  if  he  would  give  me 
time  I  could  sell  the  vessel.  He  was  very  anxious,  as  I  was,  that  I 
should  not  lose  the  sale  of  the  vessel.  But  I  did  not  divide  the 
money  with  my  brother  because  he  had  earned  any  portion  of  it  in 
connexion  with  this  transaction  ;  it  related  to  other  transactions 
altogether.  Sometimes  I  am  indebted  to  him,  and  sometimes  he  to  me, 
more  frequently  the  former;  and  in  fact  I  know  I  was  indebted  to  him 
at  that  time. 

Question.  Did  the  captain  of  the  vessel  get  an  appointment? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  appointment  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  of  acting  master.  At  all  events  he  has  been 
upon  the  vessel  during  all  her  cruise,  and  I  think  he  is  yet. 

Question.  Through  whose  recommendation  was  the  appointment 
made? 

Answer.  Mine  and  Mr.  Sedgwick's,  I  think. 

Question.  Was  this  captain  interested  in  the  vessel  at  all  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  It  was  a  mere  friendly  act  upon  my  part 
towards  him,  as  also  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Sedgwick.  It  was  no  part 
of  the  original  bargain  that  I  should  get  him  an  appointment  from 
the  Navy  Department. 

Question.  How  often  did  Sedgwick  come  here  for  your  brother  ? 

Answer.  I  never  heard  of  his  coming  here  more  than  once  ;  he 
might  have  done  so  ;  I  never  inquired  into  the  matter  at  all ;  all  I 
know  is,  that  they  told  me  that  evening  that  they  had  been  trying  to 
sell  the  Ontario  steamboats  to  the  government,  but  that  the  govern- 
ment would  not  take  them  because  they  were  not  such  as  they  wanted. 

Question.  So  that  so  far  as  you  are  informed  the  sum  paid  to  Sedg- 
wipk  is  one  hundred  dollars  for  the  two  trips  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  that  is  all  that  was  ever  paid  to  him. 

Question.  When  was  it  first  understood  that  your  brother  should 
be  interested  with  you  in  the  commission  growing  out  of  this  sale  ? 

Answer.  There  was  no  special  understanding  in  regard  to  it ;  the 
division  was  made  under  an  understanding  which  applies  to  nearly  all 
our  transactions  ;  we  are  conjointly  interested  in  nearly  everything. 
I  would  like  to  say  a  word  in  relation  to  one  portion  of  Mr.  De  Mier's 


TESTIMONY. 


183 


testimony.  He  testified  that  I  resided  in  Richmond.  I  would  say, 
that  although  I  was  engaged  in  business  in  Virginia  and  North  Caro- 
lina for  six  or  seven  years  prior  to  the  rebellion,  I  have  never  changed 
my  residence  from  New  York. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  correspondence  between  the  Hon. 
Charles  B.  Sedgwick  and  the  committee  on  government  contracts  in 
reference  to  the  steamer  Santiago  de  Cuba;  the  first  letter  being  in 
reply  to  a  request  of  the  committee  to  know  whether  he  (Mr.  Sedg- 
wick) desired  to  have  any  witnesses  examined  by  the  committee  in 
reference  to  the  subject  referred  to  : 


House  of  Representatives,  July  10,  1862. 

Sir  :  I  desire  to  examine,  in  the  matter  of  the  sale  of  the  Santiago 
de  Cuba,  the  following  witnesses  : 

E.  Downer,  Syracuse,  New  York;  0.  T.  Burt,  Syracuse:  M.  De- 
lano, naval  constructor,  New  York;  Geo.  D.  Morgan,  New  York; 
Commodore  Bell,  Mississippi  flotilla;  Commodore  Paulding,  navy 
yard,  New  York. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours,  &c,  &c, 

C.  B.  SEDGWICK. 
Hon.  E.  B.  Washburne,  Chairman,  dec,  dec. 

House  of  Representatives,  January  5,  1863. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  am  directed  by  the  committee  on  government  contracts, 
of  which  Hon  E.  B  Washburne  is  chairman,  to  inquire  of '  you 
whether  you  desire  to  be  examined  before  said  committee,  or  to  have 
examined  by  them  any  witnesses,  in  reference  to  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  sale  to  the  government  of  the  vessel  Santiago  de 
Cuba.    An  early  answer  is  desired. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

THEO.  F.  ANDREWS, 

Clerk  to  Committee. 

Hon.  Chas.  B,  Sedgwick. 

House  of  Representatives,  January  12,  1863. 
My  Dear  Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  note,  I  would  say  that  I  regret  that 
the  committee  have  not  taken  the  testimony  of  the  several  witnesses 
whose  names  were  furnished  by  me  near  the  close  of  the  last  session. 
If,  after  the  evidence  of  those  witnesses  is  taken,  I  shall  find  that  any* 
explanation  is  necessary,  I  shall  be  happy  to  attend  before  the  com- 
mittee: but  I  presume  they  can  give  all  the  information  necessary. 
I  am,  very  truly,  yours,  &c,  &c, 

C.  B.  SEDGWICK. 

Theo.  F.  Andrews,  Esq.,  Clerk,  dec. 


184 


TESTIMONY. 


House  of  Representatives,  January  13,  1863. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  am  directed  by  the  committee  on  government  contracts 
to  inquire  of  you  what  you  propose  to  prove  by  the  witnesses  named 
in  your  note  of  the  10th  of  July,  1862,  inasmuch  as  said  witnesses  are 
at  a  distance  and  not  easily  procurable;  and  the  committee  cannot 
without  such  information  determine  the  necessity  or  propriety  of  sum- 
moning them,  keeping  in  view  the  testimony  which  has  already  been 
taken  in  reference  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  examination.  An  early 
answer  is  desirable 

Your  obedient  servant, 

THEODORE  F.  ANDREWS, 

Cleric  to  Committee. 

Hon.  C.  B.  Sedgwick. 

House  of  Representatives,  January  14,  1863. 

Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  note  of  yesterday,  I  have  to  say  that  when  a 
copy  of  the  testimony-  in  regard  to  the  purchase  of  the  Santiago 
de  Cuba  was  handed  me  near  the  close  of  the  last  session,  I  thought  it 
would  be  necessary,  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  facts  of  the  case, 
that  the  witnesses  should  be  examined  whose  names  I  furnished.  I 
have  not  examined  that  evidence  since,  and  it  would  require  a  careful 
examination  and  analysis  of  it  to  state  what  bearing  the  evidence 
of  those  witnesses  would  have  upon  it. 

I  desire  to  conform  to  the  usages  of  the  committee,  and  beg  leave  to 
inquire  if  it  is  usual  in  such  cases  to  call  upon  persons  for  a  statement 
of  what  they  expect  to  prove  by  witnesses  who  are  supposed  to  have 
knowledge  of  the  subject-matter  of  the  inquiry. 

I  would  also  like  to  be  informed  whether  your  committee  propose 
to  found  upon  the  testimony  taken  any  charge  or  accusation  against 
me;  and  if  so,  what  it  is  specifically,  as  I  may  desire  in  that  event  to 
cross-examine  the  witnesses  already  produced,  and  to  examine  others 
besides  those  already  named. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours,  &c, 

C.  B.  SEDGWICK. 

Theo.  F.  Andrews,  Esq.,  Clerk,  dtc. 

House  of  Representatives,  Feb.  16,  1863. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  am  directed  by  the  committee  on  government  contracts 
to  say,  in  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  14th  ultimo,  that  it  has 
not  been  the  practice  of  the  committee  to  call  upon  parties  implicated 
in  testimony  taken  before  them  to  furnish  testimony  to  the  committee  ; 
but  the  committee  deem  it  proper,  when  witnesses  are  requested  to  be 
subpoenaed  before  them,  that  they  should  have  a  statement  of  the 
facts  expected  to  be  proved,  so  that  the  committee  may  themselves 
determine  whether  the  testimony  would  have  any  bearing  upon  the 
subject-matter. 

Of  course  the  committee  will  not  prejudge  the  testimony  before 
them,  but,  upon  its  final  consideration  will  determine  what  action 
shall  be  predicated  upon  it. 


TESTIMONY. 


185 


The  object  of  the  committee's  communication  of  the  13th  ultimo  was 
simply  to  ascertain  what  you  proposed  to  prove  by  the  witnesses  whose 
names  you  had  suggested,  inasmuch  as  they  were  absent  at  remote 
points  from  the  capital,  and  whose  testimony  cannot  readily  be 
procured. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

THEODORE  F.  ANDREWS, 

Clerk  to  Committee. 

Hon.  C.  B.  Sedgwick. 

House  of  Representatives, 

February  24,  1863. 

Sir  :  I  desire  through  you  to  ask  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
on  government  contracts  (Hon.  Mr.  Van  Wyck)  a  copy  of  a  letter 
addressed  to  him  by  Ezra  Downer,  of  Syracuse,  and  any  other  papers 
or  letters  upon  which  he  or  the  committee  proceeded  to  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  sale  of  the  ship  Santiago  de  Cuba. 

I  regret  to  be  compelled,  by  the  neglect  or  refusal  of  the  committee 
to  examine  the  witnesses  named  by  me,  to  give  notice  that  I  shall 
move  the  House,  at  the  earliest  opportunity,  to  suppress  the  deposi- 
tions in  that  case,  and  refuse  to  print  the  same  ;  and  upon  that  mo- 
tion I  shall  state,  as  I  am  advised,  the  contents  of  the  letter  referred 
to,  if  it  is  not  produced,  or  a  copy  furnished. 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours,  &c,  &c, 

C.  B.  SEDGWICK. 

Mr.  T.  F.  Andrews, 

Clerk,  dfcc,  &c. 


Part  iii  13 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


